User blog comment:Dual Energon/What I think makes HTTYD 2 the supremely better movie./@comment-24018437-20151113155518/@comment-24018437-20151119123502

It was indeed not a smart move. That happens when you listen to your heart and not your head: You either make a very good, or a very bad move.

There are. But like I said, they're a minority. That's just a fact no one can change. I applaud the minority, but that's what they are: the minority.

Nope. Far from it! Germany was in ruins and choas. The capitol Berlin was destroyed and thousands had died. Not just soldiers, but also innoscent civillians. The military and economy were completely destroyed, and they were without a leader. So the US, Sovjet-Union, Great-Brittain and France claimed the country for themselves, splitting it up into four zones. One zone for each country. The capitol, Berlin, also had this. The west, which was ruled by the US, Britten and France, was democratic and capitalistic, and generally wealthier then then the east, which was govered by Stalin of the Sovjet-Union. There was a lot of unhappiness in the east, and people constantly fled to the west for economic reasons. Eventually, Stalin solved this problem with, as we Dutchies call it, 'Het IJzeren Gordijn'. This split Europe into two parts: The capilistic west, and the communistic east. In Berlin, he even build a wall to prevent citizens from leaving the east side of the city. People who would try and cross to the west and vice versa would be shot and killed on sight. Stalin also once even blocked roads to the west of Berlin, starving the citizens untill airplanes dropped food packages from the air.

Tensions were extremely high between the west and the east, to the point many thought there would be another World War, a nuclear one this time. And actually, that almost happened a couple of times! There were special training programms to teach civillains what to do if the Sovjet-Union would attack with nuclear bombs. The Cold War, as it was called, was a dangerous time full on uncertainty.

And that situation that is good in theory, but goes wrong in practice? The situation in Germany I just mentioned. Splitting up the country seemed like a good idea in theory at the time. But I think I already made it clear how it went in practice.

The next generation fighting and doing things simply because its good works in fiction. Optimus Prime and Hiccup are fictioal characters. If they die, there is no true pain. If a real soldier dies..You can't compare his fate, or his family's, to that of a character that isn't real. Can we admire fictional characters? Sure. But they're not real people. This is the real world. Not a fictional universe where characters bleed ink when they are killed off by a director or author. And most sides prefer NOT to have the next generation going through what they did. They face horrors so the future one's don't have. Its almost like you have a rather romantic and naïve view of war...But actually fighting in war is much differant. Many soldiers that return from the fights have changed, mostly for the worst.They have trauma's, they have nightmares about what they did and exsperienced, they are emotionally unstable, are even suicidel or they live with deep personal guilt. And that is the harsh, cold reality of war: Its not glorious, its not buetifull, its not even heroic! Its merely doing your duty for your country. Again and again and again. Even if you don't want to fight.

Its so easy for a politician or leader to declare war and call it the right move, when they're not the one's suffering from it. The soldiers are the one's fighting for their lives, and dying for what their leader wants. They're opinion isn't worth anything. Their lives don't matter. And no amounts of 'its the right thing to do' can excuse throwing away their lives away. In war, its easy to see soldiers just as tools and numbers, pieces on the chess plate. And unfortely, that happens an awful lot. Stoick at least fought besides his men, which is much more then a lot of people, real and fictional, can say.

Or what about innoscent civillains that can't defend themselves and are caught in the crossfire, either on purpose or unintentional? Many German and Japanese civillains paid the price for a war their leaders started. They didn't ask for a war. Yet they were sucked in, a sacrifice. You make war sound simple and black-and-white, when its far from either of those. another example is when the US invaded Iraq. Sure, they did it with the noble intentions of stopping terrorism. But a lot, and I mean a LOT of innoscent people died when the US attacked. Simple civillains and families. Someone was even assinated by the US because he had the bad luck of being roughly the same height as Osama Bin Laden, and was therefore considered worth killing. But as it turned out, he was just an ordinary man. No terrorist relations, no crime record. Just an ordinary man with an ordinary life. Same for Vietnam. The US attacked Vietnam for the right reasons, stopping communism. Yet they killed tons of innoscent people in horrible ways. The most famous example was a mistake the US made in bombing. Instead of a military base, they bombed a school full of children. And several things like that happened, where the US, or any country for that matter, killed innoscent people for a goal they thought was good.

And that's what I mean that it isn't black and white. The worst things imaginble have been done with the best intentions. Even if you're goal is noble, there is no quarantee you'll never commit evil acts when trying to reach that goal. Its never simple. Far from it. And sometimes, taking actions makes things even worse. Saddam Hoessein, for example, was a bad man. There is no denying that. But because he was killed, plenty of terrorist organizations were now finally free to what they wanted. Like I said, its never simple. Most of the time, you're simply trading one foe for the other.

On a side-note, I know I'm using the US as an example a lot now. That doesn't mean I think they're evil. Rather, most of the examples I know of are US-related. That's just a coincedence, as every nation has comitted war crimes in every war.

Not everyone believes in karma or God. So using those arguments are irrelevent. I'm not religious. So fighting because God wants me to has no meaning to me. Neither do the stories in the Bible. For example, if a politican is a Christian and therefore declares war on another country because 'its the right thing to do', why should a soldier who doesn't even share the same belief fight? I don't believe in God. So if King Willem Alexander the Fourth (The name of our monarch) would say I have to fight for God, I'd give him the finger. If he wants to fight and die in a war for his God, then he is welcome to fight. As cruel and heartless as it may sound, I'm not sacrifcing my loved one's for the sake of someone else. And I know very few people that are willing to do that as well. I'm not calling them evil for that. Its simply nature to look out for yourself and your loved one's.

I'm not familiar with the Rwandan Genocide, and therefore can't really answer to that. Could you tell me about that event?

Simple: Dagur was so focused on killing Dragons and having fun, he didn't declare war on other Tribes. He just did his own thing. And contact between Tribes indeed seems to be lesser then in the books. And in season 3, he isn't a gigantic thread anymore. If anything, he's just a criminal with a gang of thugs. And the reason Stoick doesn't send an entire army after him, is also simple: Dagur has no base camp, or huge fleet. He's hard to find, and a fleet cannot track down one person. And while Stoick's army is searching for Dagur, he puts Berk at risk for other attackers.

As for Dagur deserving to die, I agree. But Hiccup is merciful. Heck, Heather actually wants to kill Dagur because he murdered her entire family. Yet Hiccup stopped him, because he knew Heather would suffer the qonsequences for killing her own brother, even if she was unaware of their relation at the time. But I will admit: If I had been Hiccup, I would have let Heather kill Dagur. But I'm not Hiccup. He is more selfless and merciful then I am. But honor doesn't always equels good. Hiccup tried to reason with Drago, and that went wrong, only realizing war was the right option when it was too late. So...Yeah. I agree Hiccup shouldn't have let them live. But as Toothless pointed out, that's what makes Hiccup unique. And again, he is a fictional character. While sparing the life of the bad guy is common in fiction, it rarely happens in real life.

Its clear that the writers used some things from actual Vikings, though I admit not a lot. They mostly used how the Viking clans (Not to confuse with Tribes.) work and how family tradition and family honor is important. Astrid, for example, works so hard at Dragon Training because her uncle once brought shame to the Hofferson clan and therefore is determind to restoring their family's honor. This is actually a trait many real cultures, including Nordic one's, had and some still have.

I see your point about Snotlout.