A ship for Blair

Originally posted by Twister
how do we define a hero anyway?

-a fire man who resceus a Baby from a burning building?
-a guy who kills sadam?
-a person who breaks up a fight on the streets?
-a person who goes to court when an election has gone all wrong?:)
-Paladin, for giving the order to use the T-bomb, or blair for using it?
Click to expand...

-Yes, though, imho, even more heroic is a non-fireman doing it, assuming equal conditions.
-No, unless it was in open warfare and even then, the conditions he had to face to get the job done and the risk to himself would have to reach a reasonable level.
-Yes, especially if it is an uneven fight and the person stepping in risks bodily harm.
-I wondered if that topic would come up on this board. I'm not touching it, though.
-Blair (Imo, his was a much more dangeorus mission than the Enola Gay during WWII)

[Edited by Shane on 11-22-2000 at 11:26]
 
I think a hero is a person who does something that may be considered courageous & under which the following conditions apply: A) the person was under no obligation to do said brave act, B) the person risked considerable personal harm & or loss in doing said act & C) we would not think any less of that person if he/she did not do said act.

Twister: Response to your situations:

A) Debatable. Some might say its not so, but still is heroic for a fireman, considering that the fireman has had training & is specially prepared for this sort of contingency. However if the situation is especially dangerous (the building is collapsing/raging inferno, they don't know the baby's still alive etc) then yes.
B) I'd agree with Shane on this one.
C) Again I'm with Shane on this one.
D) No - what's so heroic about said political exercise?
E) Paladin - no. He's not the one undertaking the risk. Blair - yes for the above reasons. However I think a mission where Blair refused orders to rescue Stingray, decided to fly solo SAR to find Flint or aborted a mission to save Catscratch is a more heroic situation then the T Bomb mission.
 
I think there's too much focus on action here. A hero can be somebody who makes a difficult decision, even if he's not risking his life as such. Sometimes, someone can be a hero even though everybody else will think less of him because of his actions. Similarly, someone can be a criminal even though everybody else will think better of him because of what he did.


1. What Shane said.

2. Somebody who kills Saddam would also be responsible for thousands of lives lost in the civil war which would ensue. Therefore, I would consider that person - even if he acted on the best intentions - to be a war criminal. Sometimes, good intentions don't a good act make. You have to weigh the predictable results against the intended results.

3. Yeah, what Shane said. BUT, I would consider a person much more heroic if he actually stopped the fight before it took place.

4. There's a certain poetic justice to it :). Both candidates are so pathetic (and practically identical) that the American people just couldn't decide for themselves :). Anyway, I think that if it had been Bush who demanded a recount, that would be heroic - because he was winning (by a very slim margin). As it is, both candidates are fairly contemptible.

5. Both, but Paladin more so than Blair. Blair took personal risk, but he only had to face the moral decision once, for a split second, in the cockpit. Indeed, even then he didn't need to think about the morality - he could hide behind his orders. Paladin, on the other hand, while taking less personal risks, had to actually direct the development of the bomb, and make sure the project didn't get canned. Blair dropped the bomb once... Paladin, in his mind, dropped it a thousand times over - and for him, it was a conscious decision, not an order from above.
 
Hmm... I should add that, to his credit, Blair did think about the moral implications of what he was doing. It is this that makes him a hero, not the fact that he actually dropped the bomb.
 
"I think a hero is a person who does something that may be considered courageous & under which the following conditions apply: A) the person was under no obligation to do said brave act, B) the person risked considerable personal harm & or loss in doing said act & C) we would not think any less of that person if he/she did not do said act."

Blair was technically obliged to do the act... but that's kind of nitpicky, since he did it under orders from higher ups in Confed. Doesn't justify killing millions just to stop a war though.

Of course he risked personal harm... if he didn't, someone else would be the lone cause that Confed stayed in the war at all, which is just ridiculous in any case.

I think Blair is thought of as a hero because of the way Confed paints the Kilrathi to be to them. All in all, Blair is some schmoe who bombed a planet and got glory in killing a race of beings who are big, bad and hairy. Beneath it all, Blair committed Genocide, even if a few Kilrathi did survive. It's odd to think that of all the fighters he's shot down, and the destruction of the Kilrathi Homeworld, not one death weighs down on his conscience, except for the one woman important to him who died, and he didn't even kill her. Has he ever stopped to think of what the destruction of their homeworld meant to the Kilrathi?
 
Originally posted by Shane
-Yes, though, imho, even more heroic is a non-fireman doing it, assuming equal conditions.
[Edited by Shane on 11-22-2000 at 11:26]
Click to expand...

This is coming from an almost trained firefighter, and his family heritage of 3 generations of firefighters, plus the # of people who died doing exactly what Shane just described. The way I take what he just said is someone, non-fireman, going INTO a burning building without gear, SCBA, or tools to save a child. Now, while that works all fine in the movies, real life is quite different. While this is just my personal opinion, and this doesn't qualify all the time, don't critize me too much on it. Anybody who goes into a burning house to save a life without proper protection is digging two graves, because chances are, BOTH people are going to die. Usually the one that enters to do the saving becomes disoriented, and loses track of where they are due to smoke, and will die from lack of fresh air, or heat, and the person there in the first place will die from the same reasons. Trust me, if you ever have the thought of being a hero when someone's trapped, get rid of it. Don't make the guys with the gear pull two bodies. I've seen 4 pulled, at one scene, it's not pretty, or something most should have to see.
 
Although having no experience with out-of-control-fires, I have seen plenty of bad (real life) fires in public places on TV, and I know what you mean.
 
Quarto: I believe I've picked up a contradiction in your post. In the case of Sadaam you've stated that if a person were to kill Sadaam that person would not be a hero due to the resultant chaos. In Paladin's case you've stated the opposite. Paladin's plan would've killed a lot of people but achieved peace. So are you suggesting that a person is a hero based on the end result of said heroic act? I mean this is sounding somewhat Machiavellian. Suppose Blair made the decision to flashpack the Ella superbase. Would ensuring peace between Confed & the UBW justify & make this into a heroic act?
To be honest I don't think that making a difficult decision makes one a hero. You said that Blair could hide behind his orders, well Paladin could hide behind the desperation of the situation - its not like Confed had a lot of choice.

Saturnye:
"Blair was technically obliged to do the act... but that's kind of nitpicky, since he did it under orders from higher ups in Confed. Doesn't justify killing millions just to stop a war though."
Do the math. If Blair didn't nuke Kilrah the Kilrathi would've won. What do you think would've happened to humanity & the Firekkans & every other species the Kilrathi encountered? Genocide. In this situation you have two options: A) Fry Kilrah, kill a whole lot of cats, best chance to end the war in our favor or B) Don't fry Kilrah, lose the war, humanity gets waxed - end of story. I don't know about you but I think the choice is clear.

"Has he ever stopped to think of what the destruction of their homeworld meant to the Kilrathi?"
Yeah? Well the Kilrathi probably didn't like it. Hell they probably think it stinks to high heaven but that's tough. They started this god-awful mess to satisfy their bloodlust. They're responsible for millions of human deaths, they tried to sacrifice the Firekkans to their war god, they've destroyed god knows how many worlds permanently & Blair should feel sorry? What the? Do you see Thrak weeping about how he's such a bad kitty for gutting Angel? What about the kats who bio-nuked Locanda IV or fired gamma/radiation warheads at Earth? I don't recall them saying sorry or sending flowers or doing something to help rebuild. Jeez after all the hell he went through its a wonder Blair didn't turn out more like Hawk - we probably have Hobbes to thank for that - ironically enough.

Just so that there aren't any misunderstandings I don't think the Kilrathi should be wiped out or subjected to draconian treatment. But what I do think is the next time you start feeling sorry for the Kilrathi because of what happened to their homeworld try putting it into context.

[Edited by Penguin on 11-23-2000 at 04:01]
 
Why, whatever are you talking about, Saturnyne? Blair has pangs of guilt all the time. Recall that scene in WCP when Blair mentions the bugs dredging up his memories? And I'm sure that guilt had a lot to do with his alcohol problems before WC4.
 
Blair's decision.

... And it was very difficult for Blair at the end over Kilrah. Just read carefully about it in HotT:
=====================================================
... A part of him recoiled from what he had to do. The destruction of an entire planet, warriors and civilians alike. Once he would never even have considered making this desperate gambler’s last throw. What had led to this moment, then? Was it just a thirst for vengeance?...
...In the end, revenge was a sterile thing. He could slaughter every Kilrathi, here and in the farthest reaches of the Empire, and the killing would never change the facts. Angel and Cobra and Vaquero and all the others would still be dead, and his life would still be empty.
He felt as if they were all there in his mind Vagabond... Flint... even Maniac, who in the end had risen above their long rivalry and given his life so that Blair could finish the mission. But in the long run, he knew it was wrong to use that bomb in the name of those who had died.
His range indicator continued to count down...
Blair thought of the ones who hadn’t died. Paladin and Eisen, Admiral Tolwyn and his nephew. Rachel Coriolis, who had accepted the fact that he might never come back and still dared to love him. They were the ones who counted. And if the War went on, they would ultimately pay the same price as all the ones who had gone before. He pictured Victory broken and shattered as he had last seen Concordia, imagined plagues spreading across Terra as they had spread on Locanda Four. It was war to the knife with the Kilrathi.
Kill or be killed. Not for revenge. Not for hate. But for simple survival of the human species.
He gritted his teeth and watched the range tick down. The target was coming up fast. It was now or never...
 
Murder is indeed wrong, but as that snippet below describes, pacifism is the wrong attitude to have when at war. Just look at what happened to Alderaan.

Just remember that murder/slaughter can be different from killing.
 
Re: Blair's decision.

Originally posted by Black Joker
... And it was very difficult for Blair at the end over Kilrah. Just read carefully about it in HotT:
=====================================================
...The target was coming up fast. It was now or never...
Click to expand...

well, we all know how this ends...it's never:D
 
Survival, Politic and Economic interests. 3 basic motives to start(whatever) a war.

(My out-of-the-loop comment of the day. :) )

[Edited by klaus on 11-24-2000 at 15:13]
 
At the core *all* wars are started over the control of land/territory. Its a limited resource so everyone wants some(of course, they want the land with expensive stuff on/in it much more.)

TC
 
Except for the Terran/Kilrathi war, of course... technically. In the end, wasn't the war about who would live, rather than who would conquer whose home planet?
 
Which is, essentially, the same thing as fighting for 'land' - in this case, the Kilrathi were fighting for galactic dominance. As mentioned in the psych profile provided by Hobbes in Victory Streak, once the Kilrathi had decimated themselves in civil war, the only option was to expand their territory into the stars.

When they met the Terrans, who were also expanding their territory, we all know what happened...
 
Originally posted by Knight
This is coming from an almost trained firefighter, and his family heritage of 3 generations of firefighters, plus the # of people who died doing exactly what Shane just described. The way I take what he just said is someone, non-fireman, going INTO a burning building without gear, SCBA, or tools to save a child. Now, while that works all fine in the movies, real life is quite different. While this is just my personal opinion, and this doesn't qualify all the time, don't critize me too much on it. Anybody who goes into a burning house to save a life without proper protection is digging two graves, because chances are, BOTH people are going to die. Usually the one that enters to do the saving becomes disoriented, and loses track of where they are due to smoke, and will die from lack of fresh air, or heat, and the person there in the first place will die from the same reasons. Trust me, if you ever have the thought of being a hero when someone's trapped, get rid of it. Don't make the guys with the gear pull two bodies. I've seen 4 pulled, at one scene, it's not pretty, or something most should have to see.
Click to expand...

Of course someone can be heroic and stupid at the same time. A lot of this depends on the POV of the people judging the act. I've not been to many live fires, but I've dug through the remains to recover bodies, and I know what a mess it is. If someone runs in the buidling even though they can hear the fire trucks coming, they are foolish, because you guys are better equipped, and the person may be able to give the firemen important info on the layout of the building and where those trapped inside may be. In addition if they see a fire, they should call for help first, I'bve heard of several cases where someone rushed in and didn't call the fire dept, which is also very unwise.

However, there may be situations where help may not arrive in a timely matter (a remote area, etc.) and then you have to make a judgement call. The first thing is call for help, though.
 
blair a hero...yeh prolly...but definitely he was only a hero thanks to the t-bomb run on kilrah...wasn't there something about that blair had JUST been chosen to deliver the goods, like there had been a border worlder pilot who had been chosen or something like that? he wasn't the ONLY colonel around...he wasn't the ONLY good pilot that confed had...etc u get my point...
 
That may be true, but remember what Eisen 'says,' "He [was] a man who had an effect on everyone he met."

He was also quite modest too, except maybe at the beginning of WC2, when he didn't have much else to fall back on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top