If the yeerks were really invading...

[voodooqueen126]

selling the yeerks undesirables would be immoral but it would be effective way to remove those elements from the human gene pool.
I think a host's psychological problems can be overcome by the yeerks, as Edriss said, she found Jenny Lines easy to control... As for the whole Esplin is nuts because of Alloran's ego, perhaps isolation and not having other yeerks with similar hosts and having the same host for so long exacerbated. 
People watch horror movies of innocent people being slaughtered, surely a few years of the yeerks slaughtering millions to billions of humans would delight in the execution of people who were selling out the human race, it would be a gradual process as well: first shooting voluntaries, then beheading, then beating them to death, then a few other things,  then burning or hanging drawing and quartering (dependent on gender as it was in the middle ages). The beauty of fighting aliens is that whatever you do you always be better then them, this is why giant insects and other horrors feauture so much in sci fi (like Starship troopers and Enders Game deconstructs this concept) because you can kill and kill but you never have to humanise them.

[Chad32]

Voodooqueen sounds as bad as Yorick.

[voodooqueen126]

It is not about what is nice but what is necessary.
Scenario 1: Yeerks invade in an open war scenario, far better is the species that occasionally torturers traitors/voluntaries than the species that invaded their planet and killed billions of people.I think to preserve earth's natural environment, human art and literature, freedom, democracy, joy and love basically everything that one loses if you become a controller would justify anything. It is not the tactic but the cause that really matters (within reason and with common sense and within proportion, i am not justified in torturing/nuking New Zealand over a fishing dispute, but nuking hiroshima was acceptable given the circumstances of world war 2 and probably saved Japanese lives as well.
There are degrees and distinctions, a holocaust denier (I think it was Diana Mitford) eventually said that it didn't matter if Hitler killed 6 million or 6 people because 1 is still taking a human life (roughly) who ever said this was an idiot, degree does matter, how far and why you do things matters.
Scenario 2: Yeerks cut a deal and the human race is forced to compromise.
People like Kharina and Terenia (and all the other people who said they would become voluntaries) are probably really nice, intelligent people in real life (i am guessing on the basis of numerous posts) and in such a situation they might volunteer themselves out of pity for the yeerks or ideas of self sacrifice. This would be a tragedy, as they have a lot to contribute to the human race as individuals and as parents/members of the human gene pool. Since Yeerks who are able to infest Gedds and Hork-Bajir just fine (barring a few linguistic problems) don't require their hosts to be law abiding, intelligent or sane as a yeerk basically overrides a hosts brain and controls actions, the intellect of the host is irrelevant it may even damage them (as people discuss do high intelligence hosts drive yeerks insane) therefore it would be a tragedy if someone as intelligent and as good as Kharina where to become a controller, none of her great characteristics would matter or be useful to anyone, far better that if one had to make this terrible compromise with the yeerks, that you give them the people who cannot contribute and whose presence in the gene pool is damaging... There would be potential for abuse: originally just criminals, then retarded people, then the profoundly mentally ill (rather than just people who are little depressed) then the welfare dependents, then the third world etc... but barring that sort of sliding slope, it would be a win/win situation: Yeerks get dumb, easy to manage hosts, humans pay fewer taxes and don't have to worry about Earth turning into Idiocracy...
Who is Yorick?

[Chad32]

Yorick was a guy that hated Yeerks with a passion, and even after Aftran couldn't see why anyone would sympathise with them.

[voodooqueen126]

Well the yeerks certainly do get a lot of unwarranted  woobiefication. I can understand them and i feel sorry for them, being blind slugs and all, and it's not like the average yeerk civilian was deliberately melicious. But in the end invading another planet is always wrong and the defenders have blank cheque when it comes to permitted retaliation.

[dasada122]

Alas, poor Yorick...

[Kharina]

It is not about what is nice but what is necessary.
Scenario 1: Yeerks invade in an open war scenario, far better is the species that occasionally torturers traitors/voluntaries than the species that invaded their planet and killed billions of people.I think to preserve earth's natural environment, human art and literature, freedom, democracy, joy and love basically everything that one loses if you become a controller would justify anything. It is not the tactic but the cause that really matters (within reason and with common sense and within proportion, i am not justified in torturing/nuking New Zealand over a fishing dispute, but nuking hiroshima was acceptable given the circumstances of world war 2 and probably saved Japanese lives as well.
There are degrees and distinctions, a holocaust denier (I think it was Diana Mitford) eventually said that it didn't matter if Hitler killed 6 million or 6 people because 1 is still taking a human life (roughly) who ever said this was an idiot, degree does matter, how far and why you do things matters.
Scenario 2: Yeerks cut a deal and the human race is forced to compromise.
People like Kharina and Terenia (and all the other people who said they would become voluntaries) are probably really nice, intelligent people in real life (i am guessing on the basis of numerous posts) and in such a situation they might volunteer themselves out of pity for the yeerks or ideas of self sacrifice. This would be a tragedy, as they have a lot to contribute to the human race as individuals and as parents/members of the human gene pool. Since Yeerks who are able to infest Gedds and Hork-Bajir just fine (barring a few linguistic problems) don't require their hosts to be law abiding, intelligent or sane as a yeerk basically overrides a hosts brain and controls actions, the intellect of the host is irrelevant it may even damage them (as people discuss do high intelligence hosts drive yeerks insane) therefore it would be a tragedy if someone as intelligent and as good as Kharina where to become a controller, none of her great characteristics would matter or be useful to anyone, far better that if one had to make this terrible compromise with the yeerks, that you give them the people who cannot contribute and whose presence in the gene pool is damaging... There would be potential for abuse: originally just criminals, then retarded people, then the profoundly mentally ill (rather than just people who are little depressed) then the welfare dependents, then the third world etc... but barring that sort of sliding slope, it would be a win/win situation: Yeerks get dumb, easy to manage hosts, humans pay fewer taxes and don't have to worry about Earth turning into Idiocracy...
Who is Yorick?

Well, actually the two species are about the same.  Consider- the human that hurts a voluntary has hurt another member of their OWN SPECIES.  At the same time this human has probably eaten battery farmed meat or used a medicine tested on animals or done something similar.  The Yeerks, when they kill or infest humans, are only hurting a member of a different species- an animal.  As Aftran said: "You're our meat!"  As humans do this all the time, and many of them only do it for fun (all those sadists who'll set a kitten on fire etc.), we can't exactly take the higher moral ground here.  Yeerks do however often hurt other Yeerks- just take v1s starvation which was a public execution and was somewhat similar to hanging drawing and quartering- similar pain levels.

So humans and Yeerks are remarkably and astoundingly similar.  In fact, on their respective planets they're both relatively physically inferior (OK we're not quite as bad as Yeerks but compared to many other animals on Earth...) but have achieved a dominant status through intelligence and through using other species and machinery to achieve what they physically cannot (dogs, horses, oxen etc. in our case, gradually replaced by tractors, cars etc.)

OK, not sure how that started with me ranting at voodooqueen for senseless cruelty and ended up with me comparing humans and Yeerks.  Sorry about the rambling.

Well the yeerks certainly do get a lot of unwarranted  woobiefication. I can understand them and i feel sorry for them, being blind slugs and all, and it's not like the average yeerk civilian was deliberately melicious. But in the end invading another planet is always wrong and the defenders have blank cheque when it comes to permitted retaliation.

What the Yeerks did was wrong, but it does not give us 'blank cheque' for retaliation.  We shouldn't retaliate at all, we should do only what is necessary to defend our planet.  Just because someone is in the wrong by insulting me or even hitting me does not mean I am entitled to murder them and torture and murder their kids.  I would be entitled to grab them and hold them back to stop them punching me again, or someone else would be entitled to do that for me.  If they couldn't hold them, they might be entitled to knock them out.  But no more than they needed to to stop them being a threat.

It's the same with wars.  If someone threatens you (or someone else), you defend, but you don't start committing acts of revenge.

Or if you prefer, the old 'two wrongs don't make a right' saying that my parents were always fond of quoting to me

I'm not attempting to absolve the Yeerks or the voluntary hosts of all blame.  It was wrong for .e.g. Taylor to do what she did.  But the whole point of Animorphs is that KAA pretty much always strives to make us understand WHY.  With Aftran, with Taylor, even with Visser One and Visser Three.  We maybe still don't agree with what they did, but we can see where they're coming from and empathise with them.

Finally, what you mentioned above about having aliens as enemies meaning you can kill and kill and never give them any humanity- might be the case in Star Wars or even something like Lord of the Rings where no-one ever considers that orcs might have feelings- but reversing that idea was one of the main points of Animorphs.  It was the WHOLE POINT of books like number 19.  I think it's pretty obvious that KAA spent the whole series of books trying to make us see shades of grey.

The first time I read number 19 I was yelling at the book: "Just kill her, she's a Yeerk for heaven's sake!  If Marco can nearly kill his own mother to get the Yeerk, you can kill some random kid you don't know!"

I came out of the book with an absolute Aftran obsession.  Now that's good writing   (You can tell I have an Aftran obsession by the fact that this long post came back to her in the end.  this often happens).

[voodooqueen126]

There is nothing wrong with retaliation if it is proportionate, and if someone blew up Mexico City (and frankly I would rather it be Mexico City than Paris or London) any retaliation would be proportionate, if some one blew up Paris or London (specifically the art galleries and museums in those cities-the people are awful ) one would be justified in invading their planet and burning every one of their pools.

[ThinkAgain]

There is nothing wrong with retaliation if it is proportionate, and if someone blew up Mexico City (and frankly I would rather it be Mexico City than Paris or London) any retaliation would be proportionate, if some one blew up Paris or London (specifically the art galleries and museums in those cities-the people are awful ) one would be justified in invading their planet and burning every one of their pools.

..And the people from Mexico would be saying just the opposite.

What the Yeerks did was wrong, but it does not give us 'blank cheque' for retaliation.  We shouldn't retaliate at all, we should do only what is necessary to defend our planet.  Just because someone is in the wrong by insulting me or even hitting me does not mean I am entitled to murder them and torture and murder their kids.  I would be entitled to grab them and hold them back to stop them punching me again, or someone else would be entitled to do that for me.  If they couldn't hold them, they might be entitled to knock them out.  But no more than they needed to to stop them being a threat.

Now we go from one pole to another. It's one thing to torture someones kids, and another to take a Chee-like peace approach. What is it about shades of gray again? The middle ground that's different to both sides.

Now, I am one who tends to favor logic over morality, and if someone threatens me with lethal force, I will use lethal force on whomever was threatening me. Just them, not their families and neutral fellow countrymen.

But I do agree with the concept of 19. In every alien movie, watching an alien getting slaughtered has no where near the effect as watching the same done to a human. In fact, the system used to rate movies has separate baselines for violence with humans and violence with non-humans. That's why an alien getting gored is PG-13 but a human getting shot is R. Back to topic, it's very difficult to align an alien with humanity, and even when done properly, it won't affect all of the audience the same way. For instance, the recent movie District 9 spent a long time trying to give the alien characters emotion. Yet, many people still saw them as "just the aliens". It's difficult.

Yes, there is the Yeerk Peace Movement. Yes, there is Visser Three. People always use those to argue Yeerk friendliness/hostility. Yet everyone ignores the 80% of the Yeerks that are apathetic, and don't really care one way or another. They'll take a host that's given to them, but they don't have a desire to cause suffering. Not one extreme or another. Look at human politics. You have the extremely conservative authoritarian republicans, and on the other end you have the almost socialist extremely liberal democrats. That's not all the people, just the poles. You have the more centered sides, the moderates, and even then, the apathetic people who don't care.

[voodooqueen126]

The reason I said London and Paris would be worse than Mexico City is based on the Kyoto/Hiroshima principle: Originally the nuclear bomb was to be dropped on Kyoto which is far more significant but Henry L Stimson who went there for his honeymoon said it was too beautiful, so industrilised Hiroshima was chosen instead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_L._Stimson
It goes back to the make terrible decisions thing: If you have to blow up a huge city, better it be ugly like Dresden (after it was leveld in WW2), Hiroshima, Mexico City, Soweto etc. Than massively important to art and history like London, Paris, Rome, Beijing, Kyoto, Jerusalem, Cairo,  etc.
There are a few borderline cases like Tehran which is ugly today but has some beautiful buildings, whilst Jerusalem has tacky churches and inappropriate mosques but still has the wailing wall and old olive trees.
Since the yeerks seem to lack visual arts (Visser 3's collection of torture implements aside) they probably would find the slums of Beunos Aires just as attractive as Angkor Wat.
Yeerks are complicated, emotional and unfortunate species and I am fully aware that everything was in shades of grey. As Kharina says they are very similar to humans: a weak species that achieves dominance by using stronger animals as tools, every one of shakespeare's tragedies could easily be written by a yeerk with a few modifications (getting rid of gender, subordination of women and marraige mainly). Indeed yeerks exist on a continuum. The Peace Movement is like Animal Liberation Front or PETA, most yeerks are like people in that use hosts/animals but do not wish to harm them, they are probably more focused on political and indivual freedom for yeerks then the way hosts are treated (one of the reasons I resent PETA IRL is that that energy could be expended helping humans not rats) remember the Yeerk system is basically a police state, then their are yeerks like Visser 3 or Temrash who are like Henry Harlow and those people who vivisect dogs. I am not  saying  that yeerks are not  true people, I am saying that I do not care. It would be better to become a murder, then to allow the human race to be enslaved because your conscious is oversensitive. To not become ruthless would risk ending up like these idiots: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori

[Kharina]

On the contrary, Yeerks are great appreciators of beauty.  Although I agree that slums would still look just as beautiful to them as a pretty cathedral or Tower Bridge in London or any other piece of architecture.  They don't have eyes normally, so they see what we usually overlook.  To a Yeerk in particular, slums are beautiful too.  Watch the opening sequence of 'Slumdog Millionaire' and focus on the colours, sounds- try also to imagine smell and touch.  Imagine you've never had any of these senses before.

But that aside, these are people's HOMES.  Not to mention you're blowing them up.  If anything, you should be making that kind of decision based on population, not buildings.  I agree heritage is important, but heritage is different to different people- if you were Japanese, particularly if you were form hiroshima, you might find that more places in hiroshima had cultural meaning to you than Kyoto.  It's all about perspective.

To both voodoo and ThinkAgain: I was advocating my 'Chee-like' morality as an ideal- I was kind of trying to describe what my morality consists of- you should defend yourself but you should never do something just for revenge.  But some morally questionable actions might be neccessary in a war.  Like blowing up the Yeerk Pool- I'm in a grey area about that, because I don't believe you should just do whatever it takes to win, but on the other hand the alternative- having Earth taken over by the Yeerks- is terrible to contemplate.

But I am not in a grey area about Jake's flushing of the 17,000 in 54.  If they needed a distraction, they could have done something more effective than that- started a fire, set hosts free and persuaded them to rampage causing as much chaos as possible.  It was demonstrated in 17 that Visser Three/One doesn't care about his fellow Yeerks, even large numbers of them.  So how do they think that would cause an effective distraction?  It didn't.  They did it purely because they could and out of revenge.  It is utterly wrong.

That's not to say I don't understand why Jake did it.  Having lost all his family to the Yeerks, having suffered for three years fighting them, having basically lost half his childhood to them- of course he wants revenge.  I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing in his situation (I've never been in his situation or even anything remotely like it).  But I'm saying that, if you detach yourself from Jake's emotions and just look at the morality of the act, it was completely wrong and I cannot condone it.

When I was talking about using the minimal force necessary to defend yourself, I wasn't saying that everyone will always act that way, or even usually act that way.  No one is perfect.  But I would vouch for it as a moral ideal.

[voodooqueen126]

On the contrary, Yeerks are great appreciators of beauty.  Although I agree that slums would still look just as beautiful to them as a pretty cathedral or Tower Bridge in London or any other piece of architecture.  They don't have eyes normally, so they see what we usually overlook.  To a Yeerk in particular, slums are beautiful too.  Watch the opening sequence of 'Slumdog Millionaire' and focus on the colours, sounds- try also to imagine smell and touch.  Imagine you've never had any of these senses before.

But that aside, these are people's HOMES.  Not to mention you're blowing them up.  If anything, you should be making that kind of decision based on population, not buildings.  I agree heritage is important, but heritage is different to different people- if you were Japanese, particularly if you were form hiroshima, you might find that more places in hiroshima had cultural meaning to you than Kyoto.  It's all about perspective.

Well not really... certainly we all have different perspectives and slight variations in taste... but the over all consensus is that certain things are more beautiful than others. the sistine chapel more beautiful than the kremlin, the summer palace in beijing more beautiful than hugh hefner's play boy mansion, Kyoto more beautiful than Hiroshima... Not just to Stimpson, but to Japanese as well: Kyoto is a city of temples, shrines and palaces some of them dating to the 10th century, Kyoto is of national significance to the Japanese and any human can go there and enjoy the cities aesthetic beauty. where as Hiroshima would be  of significance on an individual level: a place in Hiroshima is beautiful to someone because they met their wife there, or their first memory is of their mother taking them to that particular place, this is touching. But you or I could go to Kyoto and be instantly smitten with the city's beauty... a city for all humans to enjoy and appreciate not just the people who have a lifelong commitment, as is London, Paris or Rome.
Yeerks lack of discrimination when it comes to aesthetics is the very reason we should not take their art judgements too seriously... they're like "Oh my kandrona a toilet bowl! Oh My Kandrona an Iron Maiden! Oh MY Kandrona Chernobyl after the blast!" the last part is significant because that is what the yeerks were going to do to Earth: Everything beautiful and wonderful from the Panda to the coelcanth, from Hagia Sophia to the papuan long house they would destroy because... it's almost as if yeerks are over loaded by senses and beauty and being blind they have not developed  good prejudices and sensible discrimination: so because a filthy polluted pool is beautiful to them they destroy anything more beautiful than that. Rather like what happened in Australia; they brought in boring violets, vermin starlings and evil animals like foxes and rabbits because Australia's own natural beauty was too much  for them... Like it or not, there are benchmarks and universal standards for beauty (which are mathematically based), and discrimination and prejudiceses that are good and need to be cultivated (read Theodore Dalrymple' In praise of prejudice) it's not all relative to culture or upbringing, human tastes, like everything else, are biological in origin (the preference for symmetry, for height in men, large eyes and clear skin are the most obvious examples)...
But then, even for an aesthete like myself it is not that simple: take Cairo and Egypt generally, some of the most beautiful and the very oldest buildings on earth: the pyramids, abu Simbel and the Sphinx all reside there... But the people who reside there today are not the same people who built the pyramids, Abu Simbel or the Sphinx. In fact their almost the opposite, having contributed very little to human civilisation in the last 1500 years (admittedly the pyramids would be hard to beat)... except Sayyid Qutb which is almost anti civilization... Ironically across the border is Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (and Israel generally) having been sacked by filthy barbarians so many times in the last 2000 years they have very little of the ancient world except for the Wailing Wall... and yet by ironic twists of history the people of Israel are the same people who created the idea of a rational universe, the rule of law and all men (including the king) being equal before it, fair trial, human rights, the idea of a loving god with respect for the individual, objective history these are all ideas that have shaped human civilization for the better and all find their seeds in the old testament. for much as people like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris love to bash the old testament, the ideas it contains are the foundations of things like Magna Carta and later into the social contract... ironic isn't it? Later those same people went on to make huge contributions to literature, music, science, business and social activism (notably few of these contribution are aesthetic, so perhaps Solomon's temple was the ugliest building in the ancient world and this is why the Babylonians destroyed it when they spared other ancient buildings). So in terms of beautiful Cairo or ugly Tel Aviv it becomes difficult... which brings me to my next point Population:
 sadly it has long been observed that as a woman's education increases so to do her children decrease.  this has been observed across all authentically industrilised nations from China, Japan, Korea and Singapore to America, England and Australia.

[ThinkAgain]

Kharina, I see exactly what you are saying. I think I might not have said it clearly in my original post; I was not vouching for revenge, I was supporting preemptive action. If someone points a gun at me with the intent to kill, I'm going to attempt to draw and fire as fast as I possibly can. I didn't mean to go out and stab someone for making a baseless and shallow threat.

Also, I see what both of you are saying; Voodooqueen is vouching for the protection of human heritage and culture, and making sacrifices to do so, and Kharina is saying that everything on Earth is beautiful, especially to one who has never had eyes, and one area shouldn't be 'saved' over another based on how some people perceive the beauty. Personally, I sort of agree with both of you. If choices and sacrifices must be made, a middle ground must be found. Human heritage and achievement should be preserved, abet not at all costs. I think a city with a large human population should be spared over one perceived to be more culturally significant that has a much smaller population. By simple, although crude logic, if one must choose between saving two people or 100 people, the choice is clear. But if populations are equal, the city deemed more valuable should be the one preserved. It's pretty harsh to write off entire cities of people and their own unique histories, but sadly, if sacrifices need to be made, a choice must happen. It's not something where you can stomp your foot and shout, "No!"

[voodooqueen126]

So if a city has a high population this might not correlate with intelligence of its members. Sure wealth and health are the natural rewards for intelligence and these things should result in a higher populations (the whole idea of evolution that positive traits lead to big populations) in fact looking at say Sao Paulo, the slums of Mumbai (aka slumdog) , Karachi, Kinshasa, Jakarta,  etc... is that if you spared big cities but blew up smaller ones like Cambridge, this would be worse for the human race than if you blew up Bangalore and Haifa and spared Lagos and Riyadh... So sure some ugly cities like Los Angeles would be spared because of their high population and this would be okay because Americans (contrary to the stereoytpe popular amongst jealous old world europeans) are actually clever people and their vast wealth is a reward for intelligence as it should be. but the yeerks blowing up small cities and sparing big cities for their population would have a terribly dysgenic affect on the human race, which is precisely what they would do. Yeerks prefer moronic hosts (and as Nate the Ape speculated, the Gedds became dumber when the yeerks basically thought for them and as a way to cope with having no freedom) and we even speculated that intelligent hosts cause the yeerks problems (like Alloran and Esplin and heck Edriss and Allison Kim) so an open Yeerk invasion would probably blow up:
America (especially Washington, Harvard, Silicon Valley etc), Japan, Korea, Western Europe (where ever great universities are)and the parts of England (like Cambridge and Oxford and Buckingham palace but would spare bradford and the north), Israel (for the same reason that every villain from Ramses to Stalin in human history has sought to destroy them: because intelligent people are a threat to tyrants), much of India (especially cities such as Bangalore, Hyderbad, Delhi, Calcutta), Beijing and Shanghai. Leaving the yeerks with Africa, South East Asia, Polynesia, Australia, South America etc still a huge number of people and a human race without leadership or elite and very little technology easily conquered... The middle east would be a borderline case: it could prove as difficult to the yeerks as it does for America IRL or it could be easy for the same reason that America wants to invade the middle east...Edriss said it would be easy but that would be a slow infestation method rather than the bomb and invade the place to pieces method... I have stated previously that Open warfare in Esplin's style and Slow infestation in Edriss's style have opposite effects on the same human personality trait: Humans are social animals who need to belong to a group and in peace people who otherwise can't find friends easily join movements (like scientology or the sharing) and it war those same people join the army and serve their countries very happily. A good example of this is Adolf Hiter: a loner and a tramp before the war who people thought was weird, when WW1 came along he joined the army and for the first time in his life experienced camarederie and friendship and became a brave soldier and was very happy (in WW1 trenches he was happy! think of that) after the war ended badly for his side he tried to reproduce that feeling of camarederie and friendship by joining and later leading the Nazi party (or so psychological speculation goes). Then people, to be accepted by their peers joined and supported this movement,  and proving KA Applegates point in Visser that humans will do any act of evil (giving up free will to gassing children) in order to be accepted  by the group...  The middle east could go either way for the yeerks.

[2005004219]

I have a plan. Contact the chee in the sharing, find the morphing cube. I will convince the chee to help me find the biological data of the yeerks bodies. Create a chemical compound that will drug the yeerk in the controller's body make it suggestible to hypnotism then get them to come out of the host body without killing them, thus limiting the casualties, use the morphing cube to morph yeerks and put them in the former controllers to infiltrate the yeerks. with eriks help i'll start a company get lots of money began developing nonlethal (shock gun- enough to take down even the toughest animal, paralyzing venom, sticky substances think spiderman. force field armor controlled by a efficient targeting system and non lethal missles etc) weapons under the pretense of making society better, they will be used to fight the controllers . I'll start recruiting people far away from yeerk infested places to start a revolution. Develope devices that can detect kandrona energy or x ray miniature items to find who is a controller. Contact the yeers in yeerk peace movement work together. I'll use erik or yeerk peace movement yeerk to convince the higher up vissers or council of thirteen to use non lethal means of aquiring hosts. I'll start searching for pemalite technology to find a ship to travel to planet of Iskoort or use zero space to arrive their faster, to get proof for yeerks that their is a better way. Once enough of the rebels have enter the yeerk base I'll set a trap, sabotage their security, lace the air filter with slow knock out gas , but before that the rebels and yeerk peace troops would lure the majority enemy controllers in a room for a speech assembly or something then the knock out gas would already defeat them the communications would already be sabotaged so no distress signal would be sent. That way minimal to no casualties would happen making the other yeerks and peace movement yeerks more cooperative. As a bonus I'll discredit visser three, give evidence that he is a selfish bastard , he does not care about his fellow yeerks, he cares only about himself and he is a threat to the yeerk empire with his selfish ambitions and the way he treats his workers, example making workers blind with fear that makes coordination between leader and team difficult, fear making the yeerk soldiers less patriotic and efficient even silenting those who could have made the earth campaign better. close minded and of course his lack of loyalty and care for the wellbeing of his fellow yeerks., again making the yeerks more reasonable to negotions. I'll show them the Iskoort as proof of a better way. the drug is just a way of infiltration. I'll probably need aftran's help and the chee to get passed the leeran controllers then Crayak would probably find a way to hinder the plan of ending the war with minimal or no casualties. To further weaken the yeerks along with my plan I'll study the taxons physiology find a way to help them get kandrona generator for prisoners during the infiltration phase. With the minimal to no casualties the yeerks would probably trust and cooperate with humanity more. The rebels are just to hunt down any stragglers not caught in the trap. As a bonus maybe there is a way to stop crayak with the time matrix or lead him into a trap with a bigger cosmic being in another dimension or trap him in mortal form, if possible using zero space and the rubber band effect. , I don't understand the nature of his powers. How is the plan?[/color]