Forum:ONI as Antagonists

Forums: Index → General Discussion → ONI as Antagonists

Antagonists

Is the ONI the "bad guys" after the Covenant and the Flood? In The Mona Lisa, John Smith is an ONI officer who tested the Flood infection on human prisoners, and he obviously worked against Lopez and her squad. In Glasslands, ONI attempts to help a group of Elites to start an insurrection against Thel 'Vadam, the very Elite who symbolizes the alliance between the humans and the Sangheili, which helped the humans defeat the Covenant Empire. And to some extent, they are Complete Monsters, abducting children from their parents, training them and then letting the majority of them to die. Sure, there are some good ONI characters: Veronica Dare, Catherine Halsey, Connor Brien... but then there's also James Ackerson, Aaron Gibson, John Smith, etc.

The way the ONI gives out propaganda can be considered immoral. Look at the ONI Directive 930. Numerous Spartans sacrificed themselves, for nothing. Issac-039 and Vinh-030 sacrificed themselves to save Dr Halsey and other Spartans, but they wouldn't get any recognition, because they are MIA. People assumed they just gone missing. No one would know they died to save Halsey. Just some food for thoughts. —S331 _{(When I played Halo: CE, we didn't have any fancy-shmancy armor abilities...)} 03:01, 12 September 2011 (EDT)

The only antagonists among ONI are Section III. Section I and II have jobs that are vital to humanity's survival - Section I is essentially espionage and counter-espionage, which is an absolute necessity in a post-war universe where Insurrectionists with UNSC secrets could sell them to Brutes or Jackals. Section II may deal with propaganda, but that in itself does not a villain make - the Allies pumped a constant stream of it during World War II, and most countries continue to. The modern US Military cooperates with Hollywood productions because depicting their personnel and machines is good advertising. After Top Gun, recruitment figures for the Navy jumped. They also have very good reasons not to let people know that Spartans can be killed. During World War II, US comics had superheroes fighting Nazis long before they actually entered the war. Now, imagine that your country is fighting Nazi Germany, is losing, and that these superheroes are real. It would be a major morale boost - hence declassifying them. But you completely lose the effect that has if you also tell people that, sorry, they're weak against Kryptonite. Everybody uses propaganda - it only becomes a Repugnant and Terribly Unconscionable Thing when it's done by the "enemy".

At the same time, Section III's NavSpecWar and NavSpecWep departments have done the bulk of ONIs immoral actions that we've seen so far - NavSpecWep with the SPARTAN-II and -III Programs, and NavSpecWar with their covert warfare against their ostensible "ally" the Sangheili. But, again, they were semi-justified for their ends, if not their means - savin humanity. The SPARTAN-II Program was meant to shut down an Insurrection that could see human-occupied space turn upon itself, colony against colony, an escalating war for territorial and ideological dominance that the UNSC wanted to stop... by imposing their own ideology. The SPARTAN-III Program was meant to buy humanity time. And it worked. Yes, it saw the deaths of hundreds of supersoldiers, but never needlessly. The operations they engaged in distracted or tied up the Covenant for months, months that the rest of humanity needed. And the operations against the Sangheili are also justified - after fighting nearly thirty years against them for survival, humanity understandably is not eager to see them build up their strength. Likewise, the Sangheili resent humanity's tenacity and creativity, and see us as a threat. Yes, they helped each other destroy the Covenant - but now that the Prophets have disappeared and the remainder of the Covenant have fallen apart, that doesn't mean anything anymore. They don't "owe" each other anything. Whoever wins the power struggles of Sanghelios, humanity will be able to take advantage of things. Parangosky is funding the rebels to destabilise the status quo - if the rebels win, the Sangheili are weakened by conflict and political turmoil, humanity have valuable intelligence and contacts and are in a position of strength. If the Arbiter's faction wins, the Sangheili still resent the hell out of humanity, but are held back by the Arbiter and Hood's negotiations, and humanity gain valuable intelligence and contacts and are in a position of strength. Whichever side wins, humanity comes out on top. It's a very interesting Xanatos Gambit - whatever happens, humanity comes out stronger.

Mostly, I think, ONI exists to throw a bit of ambiguity into the mix - the suggestion that fighting for the right cause, and being on the winning side, doesn't by default make one a "good guy". ONI have the right goals, but accomplish them by means born from desperation. Their heart is in the right place - it's just a black, shrivelled thing. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 23:36, 14 January 2012 (EST)

Very well said SpecOps, I agree with pretty much all of it. Even though I really, really dislike Section III and what they do, I think it makes for a much more interesting universe, so it's not just about the humans, who are good and perfect and weaker, fighting these big mean aliens from somewhere else, who want to kill all of us. The series has slowly been getting away from the simple good vs evil idea. CE was just that, good vs evil, nothing really in between. Halo 2 added some character and feeling of the other side of the war, following Thel, and learning how they were all wrong. Halo 3 more or less just kept this idea going, though it did have the Gravemind helping you for a bit, even if he was just playing everyone. ODST is where it really gets interesting, because that's where ONI comes in. That's what changes everything, and why I think all post-ODST Halo media will be more complex, and darker. If Halo: CE is the best example of the early Halo universe's basic Good vs Evil, then I think the best example of the newer, darker, and more complex Halo universe is best shown here. Alex T Snow 04:40, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks! I like the idea of complexity - few answers worth asking are "yes" or "no", black and white make for a boring light spectrum, etc etc. And just in case my wall of text put some people off, I'm not saying SecIII aren't villains, because they totally are. My point is just that even as villainous as they are, ONI aren't conventional "antagonists". I actually like the depiction shown in ODST - that they're willing to reassign special warfare troops from an absolutely important mission, not tell them anything about what they're going after, and then in the end it seems a partial anticlimax that it's just an Engineer, only for that Engineer to play a huge behind-the-scenes role in future canon. That just seems like ONI's style to me! -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 06:33, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Yeah, I agree with what you're both saying. One of the best ways of describing ONI is what Parangosky said "I do a lot of bad things. I spend every day ruining peoples' lives and ending them, but I know that by killing these people less people will die because of that." Paraphrasing, but pretty much sums them up: they do lotsa bad things, but overall help people out. Vegerot goes RAWR! Vegerot (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2012 (EST)!

Yeah, I agree, villain is better than antagonist. Villain just says they do evil-like things, but doesn't really say whether they're "good" or "evil". Antagonist clearly says they are working againt the protagonist(s) (in this case John, or humanity in general), which they clearly are not. Alex T Snow 17:17, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Quote: "“What ONI is trying to accomplish is actually very smart.”

I’ll disect the link you posted. It is everything BUT smart.

“The only antagonists among ONI are Section III. Section I and II have jobs that are vital to humanity’s survival – Section I is essentially espionage and counter-espionage, which is an absolute necessity in a post-war universe where Insurrectionists with UNSC secrets could sell them to Brutes or Jackals.”

Yes selling vital secrets to the crippled Brutes that have now resorted to in-fighting amongst themselves and being the victems of a xenocide by the Elites is totally dangerous…./sarcasm. The Jackals have sh*t ships to begin with. They also actually ENJOYED trading with humans DURING the war. without any pressure from the Covenant, Jackals are not a threat to humanity as a whole. Most just turned back to their natural state of being pirates, merchants, and traders.

“Section II may deal with propaganda, but that in itself does not a villain make – the Allies pumped a constant stream of it during World War II, and most countries continue to. The modern US Military cooperates with Hollywood productions because depicting their personnel and machines is good advertising. After Top Gun, recruitment figures for the Navy jumped. They also have very good reasons not to let people know that Spartans can be killed. During World War II, US comics had superheroes fighting Nazis long before they actually entered the war. Now, imagine that your country is fighting Nazi Germany, is losing, and that these superheroes are real. It would be a major morale boost – hence declassifying them. But you completely lose the effect that has if you also tell people that, sorry, they’re weak against Kryptonite. Everybody uses propaganda – it only becomes a Repugnant and Terribly Unconscionable Thing when it’s done by the “enemy”.”

True, but propaganda isn’t really the problem with ONI at all. That is something they NEED to have a chance against extinction. However, starting a pointless war/xenocide is not.

“At the same time, Section III’s NavSpecWar and NavSpecWep departments have done the bulk of ONIs immoral actions that we’ve seen so far – NavSpecWep with the SPARTAN-II and -III Programs, and NavSpecWar with their covert warfare against their ostensible “ally” the Sangheili. But, again, they were semi-justified for their ends, if not their means – savin humanity. The SPARTAN-II Program was meant to shut down an Insurrection that could see human-occupied space turn upon itself, colony against colony, an escalating war for territorial and ideological dominance that the UNSC wanted to stop… by imposing their own ideology.”

Figures were done by a leading scientist in the Halo universe about the Insurrection. The results were not good. Basically the shattering of the UEG/UNSC and the beginning of conflict again after 300 or so years of peace. F*ck yeah it’s reasonable to make a small group of covert super-soldiers to quell the rebellion and maintain peace. BTW, the “ideology” that they are imposing kept a multi-system human race at total peace for 300 years or so. Then some people decide they have authority issues and start doing bombings killing innocent civilians. Hmmmm, which ideology should we choose? The one that kept mankind at peace for 300+ years? Or the one that blows up random civillians and denied any chance for diplomatic solution? Tough question.

“The SPARTAN-III Program was meant to buy humanity time. And it worked. Yes, it saw the deaths of hundreds of supersoldiers, but never needlessly. The operations they engaged in distracted or tied up the Covenant for months, months that the rest of humanity needed.”

^ acts as if S-IIs weren’t needed to keep the peace. And if you get into an ethics debate, abducting 75 children and making them the best of humanity with the highest survival rate in TWO wars is >>>> in ethics compared to asking 4 year olds if they want to fight monsters (and at that age they have no concept of what that really entails) then training them to die on suicide missions at the age of 12-14 at hundreds at a time.

“And the operations against the Sangheili are also justified – after fighting nearly thirty years against them for survival, humanity understandably is not eager to see them build up their strength. Likewise, the Sangheili resent humanity’s tenacity and creativity, and see us as a threat. Yes, they helped each other destroy the Covenant – but now that the Prophets have disappeared and the remainder of the Covenant have fallen apart, that doesn’t mean anything anymore. They don’t “owe” each other anything. Whoever wins the power struggles of Sanghelios, humanity will be able to take advantage of things. Parangosky is funding the rebels to destabilise the status quo – if the rebels win, the Sangheili are weakened by conflict and political turmoil, humanity have valuable intelligence and contacts and are in a position of strength. If the Arbiter’s faction wins, the Sangheili still resent the hell out of humanity, but are held back by the Arbiter and Hood’s negotiations, and humanity gain valuable intelligence and contacts and are in a position of strength. Whichever side wins, humanity comes out on top. It’s a very interesting Xanatos Gambit – whatever happens, humanity comes out stronger. ”

"

And then we become no better than the enemy. WHY NOT F*CKING ARM THE ELITES THAT ARE ON OUR SIDE?!?! Nope, we will arm the Elites that want to f*cking kill us, and CAN TURN THE ENTIRE SPECIES AGAINST US by pointing and saying “Hey! Humanity gave us these weapons so we could kill eachother! They are all scum, so let’s band together and kill these backstabbers!” What ONI SHOULD have done is give the Elites that ALREADY like us weapons to help fight the rebels, showing that we aren’t a species of douches.

At this point in the Halo universe my favorite race is the Grunts (I’m being 100% honest). They have put up with so much shit, and if trained, motivated, educated, and equipped, they would be more effective soldiers than the average human.

-" Endquote (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot! 19:15, 21 February 2012 (EST)!

I completely agree Vegerot, and to expand on your last point, slightly off topic, is something I found odd in Halo 3 (and one of very few complaints with that game) was that even though the Grunts and Hunters allied with the Sangheili in Halo 2, all you did was fight them in 3. I get that you kinda have to have Grunts to fight from a gameplay perspective, but there could have been SOME friendly ones; same goes for Hunters :/ Alex T Snow 05:03, 22 February 2012 (EST)

I read somewhere that 99.9% of Mgalekgolo are sided with the Elites. Only a very few of them sided with the Jiralhanae, and that there were so little Mgalekgolo sided with the Jiralhanae that what you killed in Halo 3 was a big percentage of their forces. And the Unggoy, they pretty much sided with whomever was in charge of their ship. But the Sangheili had about 10X more ships, so...and apparently the reason they didn't put some Ally Unngoy and Mgalekgolo was that it would be too confusing to tell between the two. and also, that would just make it too easy. (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot! 21:00, 22 February 2012 (EST)!

@Vegerot:

• "Yes selling vital secrets to the crippled Brutes that have now resorted to in-fighting amongst themselves and being the victems of a xenocide by the Elites is totally dangerous…./sarcasm. "

That's like saying Russia isn't a threat to the US since the Soviet Union fell. Yes, they're weaker, and there's infighting for political supremacy. But that doesn't mean they can't do damage where it hurts, or that they don't want to, and when someone finally does rise to the top, the Brutes aren't likely to just stay sitting on the sidelines as the Elites mop them up. And Jackals are consummate opportunists - pirates, mercenaries, privateers. You're telling me they wouldn't buy info on UNSC trade routes, weapons, slipspace drives, tactics and strategies, to make their raids go smoother? Or then sell that same information to the highest bidders, who are likely to be the Elites that want us dead?

• "However, starting a pointless war/xenocide is not."

You're missing the point. It's not a hot war - it's a cold one, meant to stop a hot war, or manipulate it so that the UNSC can better fight one. Parangosky sees war between humanity and the Elites as a long-term inevitability. By playing the two sides off, they buy time, and ensure that the faction they can beat is the one that will win.

• "F*ck yeah it’s reasonable to make a small group of covert super-soldiers to quell the rebellion and maintain peace. BTW, the “ideology” that they are imposing kept a multi-system human race at total peace for 300 years or so."

I'm not saying I disagree with the ideology. I'm saying that there's no choice given. It's like...go watch Firefly. The rebels vs the Alliance - the colonies want to pave their own path, while the Alliance has a path and wants to impose it on them. A better analogy - Britain has been a powerful empire, prosperous and internally peaceful, for hundreds of years. But the British North American colonists decide they want to do their own thing, Britain sends over troops. It's about freedom and liberty and other words that politicians flick at each other like rubber bands. And ethics? In my Halo? It's less likely than you think. Abducting and training child soldiers is considered a war crime today. I'm not condoning or condemning the aim, I'm saying the method was wrong.

• "^ acts as if S-IIs weren’t needed to keep the peace."

No, I'm not. Yes, the Insurrection would have had a far better foothold without the Spartans taking out their leaders. But every empire has had to face overextension - Rome. The Ottomans. Russia. France. Britain. All empires that couldn't maintain their distant territories. There are lessons to be learned in how Rome collapsed in on itself, how France couldn't let go of Indochina and it came to bite them in the arse, and how Britain still maintains strong political connections with its former colonies - I should know, I live in one of them. Economic and diplomatic ties are a powerful tool. There's a reason why the Commonwealth of Nations still exists. And your point about the S-III program also misses mine - as John himself finds out early in The Fall of Reach, there's a difference between spending lives and wasting them, a distinction that the commanders of S-III know well. I'm not defending anything that was done on moral grounds, I'm saying that everything had payoffs.

• And then we become no better than the enemy. WHY NOT F*CKING ARM THE ELITES THAT ARE ON OUR SIDE?!?!

Because they're not on our side. The Arbiter's faction would be quite happy to see us all fall into a black hole. That doesn't make them our enemy, in the same way that their unwillingness to finish us off (yet) doesn't make them our friends. The Elites and the UNSC are the only two major powers left standing after the war - of course they're going to be rivals, economically, politically, and possibly militarily. Another analogy to the post-WWII Soviet Union vs the United States, and the start of an analogous cold war. In the (inevitable, according to ONI) war between the recovering UNSC and the Elites, the Arbiter's faction would be the stronger - so ONI undermines it so that the weaker faction is likely to win. And, can I just say - after defending the S-II Program, you're trying to take the moral highground?

Sorry if this seems rude and combative, but that's how your tone came across to me, and I felt I needed to correct/defend some important points. If it wasn't meant to be, then I apologise, though I stand by my points. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 07:23, 22 February 2012 (EST)

What makes this debate so interesting is that SpecOps (more or less) shares Parangosky and ONI's perspective, and Vegerot (more or less) shares Hood and the UNSC's perspective. I'd bet both will be explored at least to some degree in the new trilogy, for good or ill :) Alex T Snow 16:39, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Vegerot gets to be the badass admiral, and I'm the octogenarian shadow puppetmaster? ...yeah, okay I'll give you that one. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 16:47, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Now that you've put it that way... *mind-blown* — subtank 18:58, 22 February 2012 (EST)

If Hood sounded like an idiot. This is craZboy557, signing off. 08:26, 4 February 2013 (EST)

Actually, I don't see why it wouldn't be out of the question that Hood is collaborating with Parongosky on this. You know? And ps, Parangosky is probably also helping Thel's side too. Osman is just one of the operations Parongosky is running. She probably has people helping out Thel too. And I'll only accept my new position if he gets to be a bad-ass admiral that can ALSO go Super Saiyan, as you know, my name's Vegerot. Last of all, this was something that I just read that makes me upset. "And indeed, Halsey got the short end of the stick. Yes, Parangosky is perfectly clean compared to Halsey. It’s not like she gave the green-light for a program that took 4 year old orphans and trained them to be suicide soldiers, or moved someone into the path of the Covenant……..oh wait, she did/does…… Basically Karen Traviss hates Halsey, a lot.

Honestly I feel Karen Traviss sucks as a Halo author, lots of people feels shes very biased especially since Parangosky has done worse. Hypocritism at its finest.

Not to mention the ODSTs were like “Herp Derp she is evil! She abducted children!!!” Like that is going to be what ODSTs are focusing on. EESPECIALLY when Osman outright told them that the S-III program trained suicide suer soldier CHILDREN, and they didn’t think anything of it. Upon meeting S-IIIs, and seeingthat they were only 12 or 14 years old, how did they react? They didn’t. Not to mention the ODSTs are perfectly fine attempting to preform a xenocide on the species that saved their sorry asses in 2552."

And to that I said "I think she’s an AMAZING Halo author. She’s the most realistic one, at least. Right after the war, it’s not like everyone’s happy, and all the humans and Sangheili sit down and have a nice cup of tea, happy ending. In real life, when wars end it isn’t a happy ending, this is by far a very realistic view of what’s going on. This is like the Cold War, or, actually there's a lot of similar stuff. What ONI is trying to accomplish is actually very smart."

and to that a couple people said "No, its not. It’s ultimate goal is xenocide, showing not only that humanity is as bad as the Covenant, but also that their aiding the wrong side, which could easily turn to bite them in the ass. ONI is taking a massive gamble with this “plan” of theirs."

"So you would willingly drag humanity into another war? Or exterminate allies whom without, they would have all been dead? It’s fucking ridiculous, it’s not a good plan, it’s her being a substandard author who’s screwing up Halo now."

"No, just no. Humanity is on their LAST breath, and NOW they want to take the war to the Elites? ESPECIALLY after the Elites just saved their sorry asses from total extinction. Not to mention ONI somehow hates Halsey now, funded Infinity, and created a S-IV project."

And then I was like >.< (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot! 21:20, 22 February 2012 (EST)!

You mean like good-cop bad-cop? I...actually don't remember any confirmation that Hood doesn't know. The ODSTs, whose perspective we see, are led to think he's out of the loop. That's not the same thing as confirmation. Hell, maybe it's part of a larger strategy? I actually like this idea! And I fully agree that Halsey got shafted, though I think it adds character to both of them. Halsey proposed the abduction and use of child soldiers, and Parangosky approved - Halsey then, in an effort to provide the parents closure, salve her own conscience and cover her tracks, created doomed flash-clones. Selfish, yes, but also smart. And this is what Parangosky takes issue with? Or is it that Halsey didn't tell her? I think that's just a smokescreen for her real resentment - the notion that as smart and determined as she is, Halsey is just as qualified to run ONI as Parangosky is. These are both powerful, intelligent, determined and ruthless women who want to protect humanity at whatever cost has to be paid. But Parangosky has a successor, Osman, handpicked and groomed for the task. She understandably wouldn't want any risk to her transition plans. And I don't think Halsey would say no if she was offered the job.

My biggest criticism with Glasslands is not the writing - it's fine. Nor is it the plot itself - that's great, and expands on both Elite culture and the UNSC's post-war status. It's the pacing. It sets up a human/Elite Cold War, it reveals that the SPARTAN-IIs secrets are coming out, and it brings Blue Team and an entire shield world back from slipspace. Each of these ideas could fill their own book. It feels like an introduction, not a self-contained novel - which is exactly what it's meant to be. It's the beginning of the story arc. I actually like Traviss as an author - my brother had a couple of her GoW books which I thought were great. I don't know about her Star Wars books, though there's some controversy over something or other. You know Star Wars fans - they make us look reasonable and measured! But Glasslands was a good book. Not brilliant, like Fall of Reach, or First Strike which was part of a larger narrative but also stood up on its own merits too, but good. It's also the same issue I had with Cryptum - it all seems to be setting up plot points that won't be resolved until other books, but the ideas in them make up for it. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 22:08, 22 February 2012 (EST)

Jesus these people are retarded, so one guy said "Well to be fair something like that almost happened at the end of world war ll.

Called operation unthinkable it involed re-arming 100,000 caputred german soliders to invade the soviet union right at the end of world war ll.

It had been suggested by Winston Churchill himself and may have been carried out if it weren’t for the fact that the soviet union massively outnumbered them.

So if the soviet union had been beat up a little more in world war ll then they may have actually have gone ahead with this plan, right after the most bloody and devastating war in human history, just months after an the Nazis basically lost themselves the war by invading the soviet union and getting their asses kicked.

So seeing this kind of stupidity in real life, is really so improbable that they may decide to do what they did in halo: glasslands?"

and then in response this other guy said "There is a difference. Those Germans were captives that would be let loose against the Russians, and we were winning the war by then. ONI’s idea is arming thousands of troops that are not captives (and as such have no incentive not to turn around and shoot their supplier), and the rebellious Elites could easily say to the Arbiter’s faction: “hey, the UNSC gave us these weapons to kill you guys. See, we were right about them all along and they want us to make war to weaken ourselves. We should team up and kill them.”

With the Russians… well, shoot, German invaded Russia. The Russians were going to attack the Germans no matter what happened. They might have turned on us if they found out about Operation Unthinkable but the USA just dropped the first NUCLEAR BOMB. That’s kinda a game changer. Meanwhile back in Haloville, the Elites are still THE strongest fleet in space, bar none.

There are balances of power that make Operation Unthinkable slightly less stupid than what ONI is doing."

Where I come from we would kick your ass for something for that. (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot! 22:59, 22 February 2012 (EST)!

SpecOps, having had considerable time to ponder your input, my answer remains the same. We must activate the-wait, I mean, my answer remains the same, what is Parangosky thinking?

“That’s like saying Russia isn’t a threat to the US since the Soviet Union fell. Yes, they’re weaker, and there’s infighting for political supremacy”

The Jiralhanae are not even comparable to Soviet Russia. Russia’s entire government system, religious system, infastructure, and allainces didn’t just dissappear. The Brutes are not fighting for political supremacey, they are fighting for SURVIVAL. They are being hunted and slaughtered by Elites ON TOP OF fighting and killing eachother.

“But that doesn’t mean they can’t do damage where it hurts, or that they don’t want to, and when someone finally does rise to the top, the Brutes aren’t likely to just stay sitting on the sidelines as the Elites mop them up.”

They quite honestly CAN’T cause any real hurt. Even Thel admitted that the Elites (Who got the best “pieces” of what was left of the Covenant, and are the most capable race) couldn’t even match the UNSC at this point. No duh Brutes aren’t going to just sit there. But really, they might as well. They are killing eachother as well as being hunted to extinction by the Elites. Hell, the smart Brutes stayed loyal to the Elites, and still they aren’t trusted with anything but manual labor.

“And Jackals are consummate opportunists – pirates, mercenaries, privateers. You’re telling me they wouldn’t buy info on UNSC trade routes, weapons, slipspace drives, tactics and strategies, to make their raids go smoother? Or then sell that same information to the highest bidders, who are likely to be the Elites that want us dead?”

Sangheili consider Kig-yar to be scum. And Kig-yar hate Sangheili. Kig-yar are more likely to HELP humanity (unless they're working for Jiralhanae). Plus, the worst they can do on their own are raids. They don’t have the man power or supplies to wage a war. Reth(?) was almost SAD that he had to stop the trading operation with humans, DURING the war. Sure, their not the nicest creatures, but in the end they get along fairly well with humans.

“You’re missing the point. It’s not a hot war – it’s a cold one, meant to stop a hot war, or manipulate it so that the UNSC can better fight one.”

They are instilling a rebellion in a species to START a war, in which case they are hoping the Sangheli kill them self enough so that humans can exterminate them. ONI, I’m sorry to tell you, but if you are trying to up your chances of survival in the galaxy, ur doin it wrong. Giving weapons to the faction that wants to KILL you is just asking the plan to blow up in your face. HELP THE SIDE THAT IS ALREADY ON YOUR SIDE. That way they kill eachother, humanity looks noble, and you have the highest chances of a peaceful co-existance.

“Parangosky sees war between humanity and the Elites as a long-term inevitability. By playing the two sides off, they buy time, and ensure that the faction they can beat is the one that will win.”

THAT’S THE F*CKING PROBLEM. Promote peace by giving guns to the ones that ALREADY like you. You look better, you promote peace, and you STILL ensure that you are on top (They either kill eachother or become dependant on you). But noooooooooooo! We must set up the scenario that will blow up into our faces and could lead to the entire species turned AGAINST US. Really, how likely is it that Thel will turn on humanity?

“I’m not saying I disagree with the ideology. I’m saying that there’s no choice given. It’s like…go watch Firefly. The rebels vs the Alliance – the colonies want to pave their own path, while the Alliance has a path and wants to impose it on them.”

The UNSC TRIED to resolve it with peace and diplomacy. What did the innies do in response? Bombings on innocent civilians. They brought it on themselves. The UEG/UNSC are not the bad guys here.

“A better analogy – Britain has been a powerful empire, prosperous and internally peaceful, for hundreds of years”

Bullshit. You look at the history of ANY country in Europe and it is plagued with war and conflict. Hell, you look at ANY country and that’s what it’s like. The UEG SOLVED that issue for 300+ years. Yeah, it’s reasonable to try to preserve that at all costs.

“But the British North American colonists decide they want to do their own thing, Britain sends over troops. It’s about freedom and liberty and other words that politicians flick at each other like rubber bands”

Americans weren’t doing bombings that kill innocent civilians. The UNSC also tried peace FIRST! The UNSC were the ones trying to save innocents here.

“And ethics? In my Halo? It’s less likely than you think. Abducting and training child soldiers is considered a war crime today. I’m not condoning or condemning the aim, I’m saying the method was wrong”

Hmm, abducting 75 children and making them the best humans possible (Faster, smarter, stronger) to preserve a 300+ year peace? Do you know how many wars went down in 300 years of human history? Dozens. The UNSC was trying to prevent millions of lives being lost from the breaking of the peace, not to mention saving soldiers lives in their battles with the innies. Not to mention the whole thing with The Assembly already being concious of most likely hostile aliens, so they knew starting the SPARTAN project was humanity’s best hope for survival (Yes, while the IIs were made to fight innies, the Assembly’s real purpose were for the IIs to fight the Covenant).

“No, I’m not. Yes, the Insurrection would have had a far better foothold without the Spartans taking out their leaders. But every empire has had to face overextension ”

Except the UNSC had a way to fix it, but then people complain about ethics. Hmm, abducting 75 children and giving them the best chance of living of all humans and could possibly stave off the re-kindling of war OR let the Inssurection grow out of proportion, fractureing humankind’s best hope at peace and most likely starting countless future wars that will leave millions, if not billions dead. Tough choice.

“Rome. The Ottomans. Russia. France. Britain. All empires that couldn’t maintain their distant territories.”

Because they went about it wrong. The innies just got pissed off that their NEW colonies weren’t as up-to-standards as the older inner-colonies that had been around for decades. It was their choice to go out their and rough it for awhile, but you can’t expect it to be the life of luxury. So what do they do? Kill innocent civilians. The UNSC actually had a way to STOP it and maintain peace. But then they get flak about “ethics.”

”There are lessons to be learned in how Rome collapsed in on itself, how France couldn’t let go of Indochina and it came to bite them in the arse, and how Britain still maintains strong political connections with its former colonies – I should know, I live in one of them.”

Except the UNSC actually had a solution. 75 soldiers to silently take it out and continue with the peace. Hell, Harvest, one of the farthest colonies, ACTUALLY LIKED the UNSC. I’m sorry, but sometimes it isn’t about liberty, it’s just a bunch of pissed off people that aren’t happy becuase they aren’t getting the luxury of more developed worlds.

“And your point about the S-III program also misses mine – as John himself finds out early in The Fall of Reach, there’s a difference between spending lives and wasting them, a distinction that the commanders of S-III know well. I’m not defending anything that was done on moral grounds, I’m saying that everything had payoffs.”

I’m not saying their lives were wasted. I’m comparing the ethics of the different programs. 75 abducted kids made to be the best and have the highest life expectancy possible vs Hundreds of “volunteer” orphans trained to be teenage super-suicide-soldiers. Which is more ethical to you?

“Because they’re not on our side. The Arbiter’s faction would be quite happy to see us all fall into a black hole. That doesn’t make them our enemy, in the same way that their unwillingness to finish us off (yet) doesn’t make them our friends.”

Thel wants PEACE. He has a very personal connection with humanity, one that he is not going to ever forget (John). And while they may not LOVE us, they certainly are a better faction to arm than the one that wants to KILL us.

“The Sangheili and the UNSC are the only two major powers left standing after the war – of course they’re going to be rivals, economically, politically, and possibly militarily. Another analogy to the post-WWII Soviet Union vs the United States, and the start of an analogous cold war. In the (inevitable, according to ONI) war between the recovering UNSC and the Elites, Thel faction would be the stronger”

Russia didn’t care for the US because we barely supported them during the war. The Sangheili literally saved us from extinction. And plus, if we arm the faction that wants to kill us, it could EASILY blow up in our faces. All they have to do is say that the UNSC is giving them weapons and BOOM, BOTH sides want us dead. When trying to resolve a conflict like this, you want to try PEACE not WAR. Do you recall The Bay of Pigs. That is very similar to this situation, and look how it ended, horrible failure that achieved the OPPOSITE of what we wanted.

“so ONI undermines it so that the weaker faction is likely to win. And, can I just say – after defending the S-II Program, you’re trying to take the moral highground?”

Really? I mean honestly? You are going THERE? S-II project was designed with the intention of ending the Insurrection with as few casualties as possible in order to maintain a 300+ year peace. It was also The Assembly’s intention to use it against the predicted Covenant threat and start the progression of Bio-augmentation so that one day it can be applied to all humans. ONI’s little “project” however….. They are trying to START a rebellion in the species that just saved our sorry asses from extinction. Their goal is to weaken them to the point where we can preform an entire XENOCIDE. Project to end a rebellion as effectively as possible with the end goal of benefiting the well-being of every human Vs. Project to start a rebellion in hopes to preform a xenocide on an entire species that saved us from extinction. S-II project casualties from their purpose? 30 or so children/teenagers(During Bio-augs) and a few hundred or thousand terrorist leaders/soldiers. ONI operation casualties? An entire intelligent species (Numbering 8 billion on their home world alone) - Not to mention the Elites are ALREADY crippled in the fact that they can’t even FIX their own damn ships, let alone manufacture and research new technology. - “My biggest criticism with Glasslands is not the writing – it’s fine. Nor is it the plot itself – that’s great, and expands on both Elite culture and the UNSC’s post-war status. It’s the pacing. It sets up a human/Elite Cold War, it reveals that the SPARTAN-IIs secrets are coming out, and it brings Blue Team and an entire shield world back from slipspace. Each of these ideas could fill their own book.” - The fisrt 1/2 was fine (Despite careless mistakes that anyone who has read the other Halo novels would have avoided.). Lucy was done well especially (Except for the whole punching Halsey thing). But the 2nd 1/2 shoved “HATE HALSEY! SHE IS EEEVVIILL!1!!!!” down your throat so hard you couldn’t breathe. But still, Greg Bear or Eric Nylund would have done sooo much better. (sorry, it's hard being the devil's advocate when you put up such a damn good argument) (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot! 23:26, 22 February 2012 (EST)!!

I'm going to stop quoting, because it's eating up the page.

• Point 1: We don't know the exact nature of Brute power. They were a significant force during the days of the Covenant, so you can't simply write them off. They were enough to threaten the Elites. And any competition is a battle for supremacy - that is the definition of victory, and Brute social and political conventions make this an inevitability. I regret comparing them to the USSR because, as you point out, it's not analogous at all. But the conditions of its collapse can be used as loose parallels - one large faction retains power, while the others all fragment and coalesce along new borders and around new leaders.
• Military actions aren't dependent on numbers or weapons - strategy and tactics are important, as well as discipline. A berserking Brute is a combat multiplier - I've seen Brutes take out Hunters in Halo 2. Again, I never said they'd be successful - just that they are likely to try.
• The same could be said of Brutes and Elites - the Elites blocked the Brutes for six decades from gaining any real power, and the Brutes tried to massacre the Elites. There's no real reason why either race should want to cooperate with the other, and I was surprised that there were Elite-friendly Brutes when I did read Glasslands.
• Again, ONI sees war with the Elites an inevitable. The Elites are still in a position of weakness, both military and political. By hastening a civil war, and installing an anti-human faction, they weaken their enemy more than by backing their "ally". That leads into your next point.
• They DON'T like us. They just don't want to fight us until they can gauge ours and their strength. The Arbiter is human-friendly. The rest of his faction would leap at the chance to wipe us out if they could, but know it would be costly right now, and are willing to wait. Why give them the chance to strengthen their position? I'm not saying I approve of the ONI plan, I'm saying that, based on the "current" scenario, its humanity's best option.
• The CMA utterly mishandled the Insurrection, and, yes, the Innies were quick to pull the trigger. but it isn't all one-sided. No conflict is.
• This is historical fact. British control of the seas allowed them to maintain a vast and profitable empire. Internally, as in within Great Britain, they had no civil conflicts after the Interregnum. Don't generalise European history with British or English history. And we don't have any picture of what life was like between the Interplanetary Wars and the Insurrection - it's been glossed over so far in canon.
• American tactics weren't as glossy or conventional as you think. They were using irregular warfare tactics long before they became military standard, the reason why the British had such a hard time defeating them. When they did take the British on one-on-one, they usually lost. When they played smart, they roundly thrashed them. And they went to war because Britain wanted to raise taxes to pay for the Seven Years War they fought for the colonists benefit, whereas before they paid none - there are many reasons to paint the British as the wronged party. All the British wanted was for the colonists to behave as citizens - the colonists wanted to continue their tax-free status while enjoying the benefits of the empire. I regret having to teach you your own nation's history, but whatever Roland Emmerich has to say on the subject is outright propaganda. I've had lecturers use that film as the butt of jokes, and then tell us that many think it's historically accurate.
• Once again, you're mistaking ethical for justified. I'm not arguing that the UNSC wasn't justified in doing what it did - I'm saying that, even if it saved billions, stopped an interstellar civil war, prevented humanity from fragmenting, it's still unethical.
• Same response as above.
• NO. They didn't just "go about it wrong". History does not work that simply. An empire depends on its bureaucrats to keep it running smoothly. After a certain point, it becomes impractical or unprofitable to maintain so many territories across such distance. Rome fell apart because its legions were too far from the centre of power to protect them. The French lost its territories because they were ethnically and culturally different. Britain let India go because keeping it would have been too bloody. Other places, like Aus and NZ, stayed because they shared a common cultural history with Britain. Others revolted because they resented British policies. The Innies weren't just a bunch of disgruntled farmers who missed the home comforts - they were fighting because they believed they had a right to se4lf-government, that the CAA did not best represent their interests. And they were justified in that belief. I don't want to defend terrorism in any way, shape or form, but it is never simply about attacking the civilians because they're there.
• Using a lightly populated and profitable world is a bad example. Of course Harvest liked the UNSC - it meant their shipping routes were safe, making them rich. Colonies like Reach, Tribute, Circumstance, etc, were the centres of the Insurrection - INNER colonies, that missed out on none of the home comforts. They resented not being self-administrated, not isolated.
• Neither is more ethical, that's my point. They were both justified, and neither were ethical.
• HE wants peace. The Elites he represents see humanity as a dangerous rival, and they are right. And anything that threatens an Elite doesn't last long. Again, they're willing not to fight us now, until they're build up their military forces and solidified their worlds. What happens when they finish off the Brutes? Who's next in line? The burgeoning and expanding human race.
• Russia and the US would have come to blows regardless of World War II. They were both superpowers with nuclear arsenals and vying for influence in Asia, the Middle-East and South America. Every ally one gained was another enemy for the other. The Bay of Pigs was mismanaged, and meant to set up a pro-US government. The All-knowing Sith'ari pointed out the Mujahideen, who were backed by the US against the Soviets. After that war ended, many of the people and weapons went into the Taliban. Is a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan better than a Soviet-occupied Afghanistan? I don't know. I'm not a political analyst. But it benefited the US, like a Sanghelios ruled by the Servants of Abiding Truth would have benefited ONI's aims.
• Yes, I'm, pulling out that one. I'm pointing out a double standard. You defend a justified but unethical project targeting children, but criticise an ONI Black Op to destabilise a probable future threat before it becomes a threat. It's not a criticism, it's an observation. And as grateful as humanity may be for the Elites saving Earth, don't forget that for the prior twenty seven years it was them leading the charge against humanity, slaughtering innocents and glassing planets. Humanity isn't going to be buddies with their alien saviours - they are going to resent the hell out of it.
• Yes, the Halsey-bashing got tired after a while. I actually love Halsey as a character - I think she's monstrous, but I love her complexity, the conflict between guilt over her actions and her justification of them. I hope we get to see a bit of redemption for her in the future. And yes, I prefer Nylund's work, though it is an entirely different beast - more action oriented. -- Specops306 ^{Autocrat Qur'a 'Morhek} 01:08, 23 February 2012 (EST)

I'm sure there are Sangheili viewpoints as diverse as human ones, so I would bet that no matter what happens, at least SOME (Thel, Rtas, etc) of them will side with the humans. Hood may or may not know what ONI's doing, but even though he is the opposite side to ONI (so to speak), Hood likes the Sangheili a lot less than Thel likes humans. If sometime in the next three games we do end up fighting (most of) the Elites again, Thel will not be the one in charge. On top of that, I very much think he'll meet John again at some point. I mean, after all, they are the "dynamic-duo" ;) Alex T Snow 02:33, 23 February 2012 (EST)

It would also be nice to see Thel come back as John's 'equal', his 'very well respected partner', and not as a mere sidekick as he was depicted as in Halo 3. If we do end up fighting the Elites it will probably be the ones that were encouraged to attack by ONI - that still believe in The Great Journey, and not the Elites loyal to the Arbiter - if Thel and John join forces once again. If not, I can see Jonathan and Thel resuming their old rivalry prior to the Great Schism, which would be awesome. --Kluutak 07:18, 25 February 2012 (EST)

lol that's funny because IMO Thel could kick John's ass if he wanted to. and ps. the name Jon is a nickname for the name Jonothan. However, John is a name all on its own. (or so it says in the sacred caves) Vegerot! 15:17, 26 February 2012 (EST)!

"Likewise, the Sangheili resent humanity's tenacity and creativity, and see us as a threat."

It is a shame that they had to go and retcon that. It was for me the only degree of diversity that they had and the major reason I could sympathize with them at least a little bit, and appreciate their struggle in Halo 2. It was the line between [1] and [2]. -Anton1792 19:38, 29 February 2012 (EST)

It would be awesome to have Thel fight with John against the "new enemy". I really like the idea of having a covenant version of John.Weeping Angel 11:40, 9 March 2012 (EST)