Both del Rio and Hood made the conservative play, and both even justified their decision by suggesting that Cortana was unreliable. The nature of their relationship with John 117 was very different, but fundamentally both decided to let the SPARTAN-II soldier confront an existential threat to humanity essentially unaided.

Obviously both the UNSC and history have treated these men very differently for what are essentially the same actions. Am I missing something?

I've been listening to a podcast about it and I am getting more and more confused. Can someone explain the alliances and events in a simple way?

Was this "lion king" story made to depict a lion dominated kingdom look better than a racially mixed kingdom? Are there any sources that prove otherwise?

As far as I know, the only sources we have on Cyclopes are from Greek accounts, which are inherently going to be biased due to the nature of their encounter. Do we have any accounts from the Cyclopean side of the conflict that help to provide a more balanced view?

Aside from ideological debates over the morality of creating this entitlement, didn't it distort the ice market? By creating a limitless supply of cheap ice, didn't Elsa encourage the growth of ice-dependent industries which would collapse upon her death - or at least rely on an ice-harvesting guild which had suffered extreme losses in numbers and training during Elsa's long reign?

It's so easy to paint Sauron as the bad guy but the Elves were a secretive group that kept a lot of power to themselves. Perhaps if they were more open and integrated into the rest of society Sauron would have never needed to wage a war against them.

Tried googling and reading a few old textbooks but I can't find anything. All the info I've come across relates to the effect on the Sector 2814 and nothing else.

In TV miniseries such as 'The Game', and movies like 'Red Dawn' the Soviet Union has had plans to either conquer the West or to take over pieces of it with political subversion. What evidence is there that there were plans for the USSR's long-term plans against the West?

If we remember transporters in the 23rd century (the age of Picard, Riker, etc), we may recall that numerous accidents occurred that, if reliably reproduced and exploited, may have certainly had great benefits to the Federation and its allies.

First, I mention Transporter Cloning - on more than one occasion a transporter accident led to a simultaneously co-existing 'copy' of a crewmember. Why didn't the Federation harness this phenomenon to clone an army of "Data" androids. It seems a missed opportunity to gain a potentially infinite quantity of loyal, benevolent, and hyper intelligent supermen.

Secondly, on more than one occasion a transporter beam was used to "reset" an ill crewmember's illness to a less chronic state. Why was this practice only used in isolated incidents when it could have been broadened into general use? The potential applications are endless - removal of any disease or condition, reversing aging, etc?

Lastly, why all the monkey business of 'not being able to transport' into / out of uninhabited caves and other assorted intervening obstacles (which led to all sorts of lethal complications in away missions) when they could easily have transported the intervening material away? This could have been done much more quickly than hoofing it, and would have been much safer.

Is there something I'm not seeing here, or were humans in the 23rd century simply mentally deficient?

Sure his atrocities, and the rumours about rumours regarding his heritage are fresh in our memories, but Aegon the Conqueror killed thousands in his conquest, and was married to his sisters, and he is remembered as a great king, because of his overall accomplishment of conquering most of Westeroes. So if we forget all the minor torture and terrible acts he committed, we see that during his tenure as king, he quelled several rebellions as a boy, before he was tragically assassinated at his own wedding, but is this enough to make him a good king?

I've seen a lot of speculation recently that the exploration-focused Enterprise would wither under the might of a military-focused cruiser like a Star Destroyer. Is there any truth to this?