- ROBERTO jh
- |
- Fabled Heroic Member
Posted by: crumpster212
Posted by: ROBERTO jh
The alliance between the two only existed because they had bigger fish to fry. They don't trust each other in even the slightest bit now that the common enemy is gone.
People who slaughtered each other for 30 years nonstop tend to be like that.
Now do I agree with Parangosky? No. She's a cold-hearted, self-centered -blam!-. She doesn't give two -blam!-s about anything other than her own personal interests/legacy. She is a moron for trying to kill off the Arbiter rather than make peace, but we know that because we have an objective, bird's eye view of the situation. Neither of the sides have that, only their own interpretation of events, which in Parangosky's case is that the Covenant were seriel killers, and now they're severely vunerable.
Can't blame someone with a limited view of things. Diasagree with them, sure, as we all do, but in their perspective, they have only their interests a heart. And their very instinct is telling them that the Covenant are bastards.I did point out that i thought their logic was justified, i just think that they should look past the years of war at the bigger picture and how another galactic war between the two would affect them both in the long term and short term
That WOULD make sense from a totally objective people, such as people who weren't in the war fighting, or even the ones who fought alongside the Arbiter and the Elites. But these aren't those people. People are simply not fully logical because they don't have the full picture. All Parangosky knows is that the Elites slaughtered billions upon billions of people for 30 years, ruined our infrastructure, had every intention of killing every last one of us, only helped out because we faced a common threat, and were only "friends" for a few weeks at most. It was a sudden, desperate alliance.
Now, the only thread that held that alliance together is dead, and 30 years of genocide simply can not be ignored. SHOULD they make up? Yeah. But then again, this war SHOULDN'T have happened in the first place, if we were dealing with people we can call better than humans, objective people. To think that after all that they would be tolerant towards each other, especially given the limited perspectives of either party, is naïve idealism.
[Edited on 04.26.2012 3:23 PM PDT]