User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151202165324

That's kind of an opinion then, but it still happens today. Its very common, infact. You may find it stupid, but some see it as a way of showing of how well they can fight or how brave they are.

That's just Viking culture. They see battle as a way to gain honor. They weren't the only culture who had that. And yeah, that's what makes the Races fun in the Viking's opinion. A lot of freedom and contact. They're a warrior culture afterall.

Plenty of historians agree with what I said. History is written by the winners of the fight. An American historian will look at things differantly then a Japanese one, or a Dutch or Indonesian.

It really doesn't. It means that more people will die for really no reason at all. How much time, lives and resources were wasted on the Iraqi military, that could be used on the terrorists? It was a common enemy! Its never good to fight two enemies at the same time. Everyone who knows anything about military strategy knows that. If they'd made an alliance with Iraq, they had more men, more territory, more resources, more power and more of...Well, everything. And all of it could have been used on the terrorists. So why is attacking a potentiol ally who didn't even attack you in the first place a good idea again? From a strategic point of view, it only led to downsides. They fought two enemies at the same time (Which is never a good idea) and their troops were spreaded further throughout the country and much more resources were needed. And in the end, they unintentionally helped the terrorists. It was one big failure in every way.

Then I highly doubt you are as morally rightious as you claim to be, if you are willing to let thousands suffer just so you can get revenge for something they didn't do. And again, plenty of US-soldiers killed people without being ordered to do so, or for a reason behind it. They were just killing people for the sake of killing them, taking their revenge on them. Or is that also colloteral damage in your book?

America indeed thought the punishment was to harsh. But they went along with it anyway, didn't they? They didn't try to stop it either. And didn't you say holding back was wrong?

So you wouldn't even have a second-thought about all the innoscents you killed on your way? Not a small feeling of guilt or regret, no second thought on how else it could have been solved without the needless bloodshed? Not remembering that thousands died for your own goal that had nothing to do with anyone else? Many people would consider you the villain in the story. And an endless war is something you should never hope for, and neither is a cycle for revenge.

You claim to know war is not black and white. Yet that statement completely contradicts everything you said. Evil isn't simply evil, because few people are that purely to be evil. Their is a goal behind it. Some people might call the bombing of Japan evil. But the goal of ending the war was good. And no, no one considers themselves to be the good guy. Deep down, they believe everything, evil or good, they do will be for the greater good. You have completely proven you don't know the full reality of war. Its almost like a game, the way you describe it. And of course, what is a good intention? I'm sure that Osama Bin Laden thought that punishing non-believers was a rightious goal. In his book, he was the hero. You make it out to be very simple, when its far from that.

Y'know? I love the books too, and are better in some ways then the movie. But I don't keep complaining and complaining its better. You think its better then the film. That's fine. But what does that have to with anything in the grand scheme of things?

I already explained plenty of times why the village avoided Hiccup, why Stoick wasn't as abusive as some may think (He's far from the perfect parent, but he isn't super bad either) and why the Vikings waged war against the dragons. They defended themselves. Look at the earlier comments.

She actually liked the adaption and didn't consider it to be butchered at all. In an interview, she states that although the film is differant, its the same as the core and she feels it does the novel justice. So she had no reason to rage because nothing went wrong in her opinion.

Again, the show isn't over yet. We may get to see it. And doesn't 'if not always' means they're Always punished? I was under the impression that meant it.

I will get in their way because its not justice. But I'm referring to racists who kill innoscents simply to kill, with no higher reason. Colloteral damage is a price of war. Its tragic, but reality. But take that example of US soldiers who killed out of pure xenophobia and nothing else. That's hardly colletoral damage. But I'm glad we agree on that about the slaughter.

You do realize he got that territory back by killing everyone in his way, including children? He indeed made Germany wealthy again. But that's the only good thing he ever did. You talk about Hitler killing children like he just out of nowwhere started to do it. But he had been doing it from the very beginning, both with his qonquest to make Germany supreme ruler and when he made his laws.

Actually, emotions and intelligence do matter. Intelligent creatures will have more obvious personalities then lesser one's. Take a fish and a dog for example. In most cases, the dog will have the most obvious personality. Emotions and intelligence are very closed intertwined. The more intelligent a creature is, the more emotional and complex it is.