Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by htjyang: **I'm afraid that your example is highly misleading. I despise Stalin as much as anyone would. But it is necessary to set the records straight. The figure of 60 million is greatly exaggerated. I assume you included victims of WWII. Although Stalin made egregious mistakes that caused unnecessary disaster for USSR, making him solely responsible will be exonerating the Einsatzgruppen, Wehrmacht, SS,...etc. **
No, I did not include victims of WWII. The figure of sixty million is, in fact, an average estimate, which includes those killed by having their harvests taken away after being paid a pitiful price, deportation of the work force to the point that in some areas no one was able to produce food and people were reduced to cannibalism, and other such marvelous works of stability, not to mention plain old mass murder. A lot of people have a hard time accepting such a number, but it is important to remember the following: Out of the billions of citizens of the Soviet Union there was not a single family that did not lose one - or far more than one - of its members. In fact hundreds of family were wiped of the face of the earth entirely.
After refuting the Russian example you cited, I honestly can't remember a single war whose casualties are less than the oppression that preceded it.
Actually, if you were to look into it, you would find out that more people have been killed in this century by governments than by wars. The Soviet Union is just the best example of oppression continuing unchecked for a long period of time.
One can also speculate on the rebellion's motives. There are those who are willing to undertake actions that will precipitate a violent response in hopes of garnering more sympathy. They can be as despicable as those who actually pulled the trigger.
Yes, they can. But this merely leads to our basic disagreement on the nature and motives of the Rebellion.
I believe earlier on I already pointed out that the rebellion is not effective in defending most of its territory. (The Confederation has more safe star systems than the rebellion.) I don't claim that the rebellion is guilty of direct, intentional harm to the population under their control. However, gross negligence is still a crime and I believe the rebellion is guilty on this charge.
The rebels had a choice - live under the constant oppression of a brutal government, with no end in sight, or revolt. If they revolted, there was a good chance that the Confederation would kill innocent people out of retaliation. If they did not revolt nothing would change (at least not for the better) and everybody would suffer - and very possibly die - anyway. If they decided to revolt, while simultaneously doing everything in their power to keep those who were not involved safe or from being implicated, I do not believe you could accuse them of negligence.
The Confederation is not dead yet. Don't bother burying them so quickly.
Sorry, I wasnt clear. I meant that in the sense of Bringing the Confederation down upon them.
The flaw in this argument is that the SWAT teams in question are employees of the government. The rebellion was certainly not employees of the Confederation. I agree that governments cannot give in to the demands of terrorists. That is why the Confederation must not give in to the demands of the rebellion.
So, what, the government has the power to make life and death decisions for innocent people? And since the Rebellion is now pretty much an established government they can no longer be blamed for any life and death decisions they now make? I disagree with this. In my opinion, there are right decisions, and there are wrong decisions, period. Sometimes you are faced with a decision, as are SWAT teams and were the rebels, that could hurt people very badly. But if the only other option is worse, there can really be only one right choice and all you can do is try as best you can so that people do not get hurt. SWAT teams do all that they can to ensure the survival of the hostages, but if hostages are murdered, I do not believe they can be blamed. And I do not believe the Rebels can be blamed, for precisely the same reason.
How about the Civil Rights Act of US in 1965? It was accomplished without Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. championing open warfare.
Yes, and because of his actions he inflamed extreme black hatred all throughout the south, which precipitated retaliatory action by racist scum against blacks that had had nothing to do with anything but being black. Many were beaten, many were murdered. Does this make Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. guilty of gross negligence?
How about in Great Britain during the late 1800s when workers were given more political rights? There were civil disobedience leading to both events. However, they never achieved the scale comparable to the civil war in EV. These examples come right off the top of my head. If I take a little more time, I can give you more. However, I think this post is already far too long.
Two points: First, historically, great nations all follow a basic pattern. They start out Republic (or some other system which gives the citizens a large measure of freedom), then Democracy, then, from wealth and general-well being the citizens get lazy and complacent. Someone who is neither, and clever into the bargain, gains power. Democracy turns into Dictatorship (or some other totalitarian government). Eventually Dictatorship turns into Anarchy and the process starts all over again. It might take hundreds and hundreds of years, but it virtually always does. Second point ties in with the first, and with your statement. Governments dont change unless the people are willing to demand. Under a system where you have rights, protests and lobbying and the like work great. Oppressive governments (Dictatorship, Communism, whatever.) on the other hand, have, historically, virtually never changed without either a revolution or external forces. To expect that to happen is like......well I already went through that.
Again, you help make my argument. I stated earlier in this post that you are correct in asserting that governments should not give in to the demands of terrorists. That is why the Confederation should not acquiesce to the rebellion.
This has nothing to do with governments. This has to do with the fact that sometimes you have to make tough decisions that will hurt people either way. You just have to try to choose the lesser evil.
Radio stations and newspapers are not controlled by the government. In addition, I forgot to mention that I could organize demonstrations and petitions.
You miss the point. Under a totalitarian system you most certainly do not have that recourse. Everything is under control. You try a stunt like that and you are dead, or worse. And trust me, no one is going to help you. If you live under a system like that, where so much as saying as saying the wrong word can get you and yours killed, and you know yours are going to die, what are you going to do? Buckle under?
One can decide what will happen to oneself. To decide what might happen to others is callousness. In addition, how about recklessness? I can certainly state that the rebellion had been reckless in their actions.
Refer to above. (Well above)
The "horrible carnage" that you described will not be extended to everyone. It will only be applicable to the rebellion's leadership.
Considering that they are killing innocent people right now, they obviously have no compunction about anything. And trust me, any government that is like that will think it makes all the sense in the world to teach those rebel worlds a lesson they will never forget. Again, that is what history show us.
After all, the Confederation wanted the rebellion population to service them again. Therefore it is unlikely that they will want to eliminate the entire rebellion population.
These would be the actions of a sane of and rational government, which the Confederation obviously is not. The Soviet Union (not too mention Nazi Germany and lots of others) had a huge slave force that they did not at all seem interested in sustaining. Oppressive governments rarely think about the future. If they did, they would see the way they are going is not going to do nearly as well as hundreds of other options would.
The Battle of Midway was fought between members of the armed services of the opposing states. They knew what they signed up for. Same goes for Stalingrad. I do not believe that the civilian population signed up for the rebellion. Being sympahtetic to it is different from signing up for it.
The flaw in that argument is very simple - they did not sign up, they were drafted. Also, I dont believe the civilian population in Stalingrad signed up for anything either. Whats more, my main point is this - those were moments in history that were likely to fail. That didnt stop someone, and those were both turning points in the war. You forgot the American Revolution.
How about the Cultural Revolution in China? A political infighting after the success of the Chinese Revolution?
Yes, it was. Mao Zedong had grown dissatisfied with the party leaders and saw them as corrupting the Communist Ideology and encroaching on his power. He bypassed the military and sent the adolescent population into a frenzy - in a purge that led to about two million dead. See, basic fact is that if the leaders of a movement are selfish, power -hungry, cruel scum then it is unavoidable that they will try to get rid of the competition.
I'm afraid the answer is no. There are acceptable justifications for revolt. The rebellion did not have those acceptable justifications on their side.
Very interesting. What are those justifications?
(This message has been edited by Begemotike (edited 07-04-2000).)
Hey! Wait a minute. Aren't both you guys wrong? You know both of you have been missing something. Your both assuming for some reason that there are large amounts of civilian casualities on both the rebellion and confederate worlds. That is an assumption that the War ships manage to cary the battles in space down to a planetary level. But this is not necessarily true. Because if a planet is attacked it usually releases a squadron of ships in defence first. But in all of the battles in EV we only see the maurading attackers fighting in-system ships. So really there could be only very few civilian casualties otherwise we would see the planetary defence in action. So we can assume that intersystem planetary assault an extremely expensive and difficult proposition, which would be the reason the stalemate has gone on for so long.
Originally posted by The EV Connoisseur.: Hey! Wait a minute. Aren't both you guys wrong? You know both of you have been missing something. Your both assuming for some reason that there are large amounts of civilian casualities on both the rebellion and confederate worlds. That is an assumption that the War ships manage to cary the battles in space down to a planetary level. But this is not necessarily true. Because if a planet is attacked it usually releases a squadron of ships in defence first. But in all of the battles in EV we only see the maurading attackers fighting in-system ships. So really there could be only very few civilian casualties otherwise we would see the planetary defence in action. So we can assume that intersystem planetary assault an extremely expensive and difficult proposition, which would be the reason the stalemate has gone on for so long.
Civilians inevitably die and suffer during a war whether or not they are used as cannon fodder. Even the republic of the US rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese civilians in concentration camps during WWII. During the British Boer War, thousands of Boer civilians died of hunger and disease after they were rounded up by the British in concentration camps. I believe Begemotike and myself are fully aware that in war, the most dangerous person to be is to be an innocent civilian.
Originally posted by Begemotike: **No, I did not include victims of WWII. The figure of sixty million is, in fact, an average estimate, which includes those killed by having their harvests taken away after being paid a pitiful price, deportation of the work force to the point that in some areas no one was able to produce food and people were reduced to cannibalism, and other such marvelous works of stability, not to mention plain old mass murder. A lot of people have a hard time accepting such a number, but it is important to remember the following: Out of the billions of citizens of the Soviet Union there was not a single family that did not lose one - or far more than one - of its members. In fact hundreds of family were wiped of the face of the earth entirely.
**
Sorry, forgot the famine victims. Now I would argue that the Soviet Union is the exception rather than the rule.
**The rebels had a choice - live under the constant oppression of a brutal government, with no end in sight, or revolt. If they revolted, there was a good chance that the Confederation would kill innocent people out of retaliation. If they did not revolt nothing would change (at least not for the better) and everybody would suffer - and very possibly die - anyway. If they decided to revolt, while simultaneously doing everything in their power to keep those who were not involved safe or from being implicated, I do not believe you could accuse them of negligence.
Or pray for a change in leadership. After all, every now and then, someone like Gorbachev comes along.
Sometimes everything one can do is simply not good enough, especially when it concerns the lives of others.
**So, what, the government has the power to make life and death decisions for innocent people? And since the Rebellion is now pretty much an established government they can no longer be blamed for any life and death decisions they now make? I disagree with this. In my opinion, there are right decisions, and there are wrong decisions, period. Sometimes you are faced with a decision, as are SWAT teams and were the rebels, that could hurt people very badly. But if the only other option is worse, there can really be only one right choice and all you can do is try as best you can so that people do not get hurt. SWAT teams do all that they can to ensure the survival of the hostages, but if hostages are murdered, I do not believe they can be blamed. And I do not believe the Rebels can be blamed, for precisely the same reason.
To be an established government, one criterion must be formal recognition (which does not equal diplomatic ties). Who do you think will recognize the rebellion? The Confederation? After all, nobody recognized the Confederate States of America and to this day, historians still do not regard them as a state. They regarded them as a rebellion just like Lincoln did.
Sometimes the lesser of two evils is simply the evil of two lessers. I think the fundamental disagreement we have on this issue is I view the rebellion as terrorists (after all, consider all the assassinations) whereas you view them as freedom fighters. History usually records winners as freedom fighters and losers as terrorists.
**Yes, and because of his actions he inflamed extreme black hatred all throughout the south, which precipitated retaliatory action by racist scum against blacks that had had nothing to do with anything but being black. Many were beaten, many were murdered. Does this make Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. guilty of gross negligence?
Of course not. As I pointed out, Dr. King never urged African-Americans to assassinate whites. The same cannot be said for the rebellion which pays people to conduct assassinations. Dr. King ad the rebellion are on entirely different planes. Equating them is an insult to the former.
B) Two points: First, historically, great nations all follow a basic pattern. They start out Republic (or some other system which gives the citizens a large measure of freedom), then Democracy, then, from wealth and general-well being the citizens get lazy and complacent. Someone who is neither, and clever into the bargain, gains power. Democracy turns into Dictatorship (or some other totalitarian government). Eventually Dictatorship turns into Anarchy and the process starts all over again. It might take hundreds and hundreds of years, but it virtually always does. Second point ties in with the first, and with your statement. Governments dont change unless the people are willing to demand. Under a system where you have rights, protests and lobbying and the like work great. Oppressive governments (Dictatorship, Communism, whatever.) on the other hand, have, historically, virtually never changed without either a revolution or external forces. To expect that to happen is like......well I already went through that.
(/B)
On the contrary, most great nations do not start out as a republic. Just ask William the Conquerer of England or the French monarchy. Even the United States is a problematic example. Can you call a state with no female suffrage, with slavery, and with suffrage for adult Caucasian males with property a republic? I believe this issue is debatable.
I tried my best to answer as many points as possible. However, unfortunately, I am on a schedule today. I won't be able to reply to the rest until the weekend. I'll try to answer the rest of your points when I get back. Don't go away!
Originally posted by htjyang: I tried my best to answer as many points as possible. However, unfortunately, I am on a schedule today. I won't be able to reply to the rest until the weekend. I'll try to answer the rest of your points when I get back. Don't go away!
Don't worry, I read you loud and clear. I was in the same position a couple of days ago. (And in fact probably will be for the next two days as well)
------------------ We do not live to work, rather, we work to live.
Rebels all the way!!! There's no competition whatsoever. Whoever thinks the 'Feds are better has obviously not experienced the excellent power of the Rebels and their missions.
Sure, you may say the 'feds are prettier. And i agree.....no one will say they'd rather visit Spica over New Britain or Capella. But the Rebels have a just cause. They're rebelling over tyranny and opression, not just because the don't like the senate or whatever. The Rebel ships are more powerful, and a fleet of them could take any junk the 'feds could scrap together. The Astrodyne Outpost missions are great, too. Yeah, the cloak eats fuel, but at a much much slower rate than the particle beam.
Originally posted by Silver: **Okay, listen, I love the Rebellion. I actually thought most favored the Rebels, but I was wrong. And I am not following a fad, I hate fads. But here are my comparisons(based on stats, not on which I favor):
Most people thing Mantas stink, but when I play the Manta wins 95% of the time that I see 'em battle.
Every major battle that I see between Rebels and 'Feds, the Rebels win.
Torpedoes are slow but have lots of damage, i'll give you that, and i do prefer them to missiles, but missiles are faster. And they have more than enough damage to get you through. They also fire easier if you have a ship that allows you to fire several missiles/torpedoes at a time.
I think all the Rebel ships are stonger, based on experience of the two battling before. I even thought this when I was considering thinking that the Confeds were better.
A fond nickname I have for the Confederate Frigates: Confederate Refrigerators. I dunno, those two words sound alike to me. And the rebel Destroyer has a teasing name because it's only fair, but not as good: The Rebel Employer.
There ya go. Also, the cloaking device is really cool and comes in handy when you're in a very violent system (like somewhere three times as bad as Darven, you could say, or when you're fighting the surviving aliens.)
I have never become an official Rebel, because at the point when I got to fighting the aliens, you know what I had? A Scoutship. Isn't that funny? Pathetic, but funny. I didn't get a Corvette because I'd be damned broke, and I didn't get anything else because 2M is, to me, hard to earn because i hate missions that are too far away. That's a downside for the Rebellion, because their government sytems are surrounding the Core Worlds.
A good thing for the Rebellion: The HQ of the Rebellion is placed near other Rebel systems. The Confederation HQ is plunked in the middle of Rebel systems. It might be a little less predictable, but once they find out, which the Rebels have, you're pretty much sunk.
And anyone who likes the Confederation more and is sexist, don't use the fact that I am female for my reasoning to be sh*t. 'Kay? 'Cos I ain't helpless.
In short, it's the Rebellion all the way. :D**
Where do you find the aliens. i have that mission now, but i can't find the dang cruiser. only the little alien scout ships. Help me! :eek:
Not many of us Confederate supporters here but I guess I will voice my opinion, the Confeds all da way, you have been comparing Destroyers/Frigates Mantas/Patrol Ships (oddly enough leaving out the gunboat in many cases) but you aint been comparing the cruisers, now is anyone here actually going to argue with the fact that a Confederate cruiser couldn't school its Rebel counterpart everytime? comon now people!
------------------ signature?
rebels all the way. need i say more
Originally posted by jaxson: Where do you find the aliens. i have that mission now, but i can't find the dang cruiser. only the little alien scout ships. Help me!:eek:
I'm just on the next stage of this mission myself, trying to destroy the Alien Cruiser. I'm wondering if I hadn't been killing enough confeds, because I've not been given the opportunity to buy any Rebellion ships and I'm trying to do this in a Corvette. I may have to abort it, but I suspect this mission doesn't come back if you do. Are space bombs called for here?
Anyway, to answer your question, the scout ships are sufficient. If you've scanned one, just head back to Palshife.
------------------
I just feel that it should be pointed out that the whole Confed vs. Rebel thing is bogus. Note that the independant systems are BETWEEN the Confeds and the Rebels. Now, a planet which declares its independence is rebelling. The rebel systems should be on the edges of Confed space, and the independant systems should be further out.
WOULD SOMEBODY CLOSE THIS TOPIC ALREADY!!!!!!
Originally posted by forge: WOULD SOMEBODY CLOSE THIS TOPIC ALREADY!!!!!!
I'm afraid not. We Confeds and them rebels are just getting warm. By advocating its closure on its own thread, you've just contributed another post to the thread. Welcome to the club! Pull over a chair and join us. Just don't forget to sign in by the door.
To Giule:
Originally posted by Giule: I just feel that it should be pointed out that the whole Confed vs. Rebel thing is bogus. Note that the independant systems are BETWEEN the Confeds and the Rebels. Now, a planet which declares its independence is rebelling. The rebel systems should be on the edges of Confed space, and the independant systems should be further out.
Not necessarily. During the US War Between the States, several slave-owning border states were sandwiched between the 2 sides. Although they didn't declare independence, they didn't comply with many orders from the federal government either.
I recommend some new comers to this thread to read my first post on page 6 2nd message. Confed gunboats eat rebel mantas for breakfast and Confed cruisers have rebel cruisers as a side order.
Now continuing what I started a few days ago:
Originally posted by Begemotike: **This has nothing to do with governments. This has to do with the fact that sometimes you have to make tough decisions that will hurt people either way. You just have to try to choose the lesser evil.
It is my contention that the rebels chose poorly.
**You miss the point. Under a totalitarian system you most certainly do not have that recourse. Everything is under control. You try a stunt like that and you are dead, or worse. And trust me, no one is going to help you. If you live under a system like that, where so much as saying as saying the wrong word can get you and yours killed, and you know yours are going to die, what are you going to do? Buckle under?
You're assuming that the Confederation is a totalitarian system whereas I see it as more of an oligarchy.
More importantly, it has always been my position that the rebels were the ones who started the war and they were the ones who deluded a segment of the population to believe that it is possible to defeat the Confederation. They lull their supporters on with absurd hopes, making out bad checks that they could not deliver on.
**Considering that they are killing innocent people right now, they obviously have no compunction about anything. And trust me, any government that is like that will think it makes all the sense in the world to teach those rebel worlds a lesson they will never forget. Again, that is what history show us.
It is still my contention that most of the rebellion's population will survive. Even when the French revolutionary government decided to teach Lyons a lesson by bombarding the city after it surrendered, the bulk of its population still survived. As I stated before, the Confederation needs these populations to support its infrastructure. Killing all of them is a waste of time and human resources.
**These would be the actions of a sane of and rational government, which the Confederation obviously is not. The Soviet Union (not too mention Nazi Germany and lots of others) had a huge slave force that they did not at all seem interested in sustaining. Oppressive governments rarely think about the future. If they did, they would see the way they are going is not going to do nearly as well as hundreds of other options would.
Not even the Nazis wanted to eliminate the Slavic peoples from the face of the earth. They picked on the Jews because the Jews were a small minority. The Slavic peoples far outnumber the Jews. In Hitler's "Mein Kempf", he wanted the Slavic peoples to serve as laborers, not eliminate them. Similarly, the entire rebellion population is probably too large for the Confeds to annihilate. They might kill a large number of them to set an example, but it won't even be the majority.
**The flaw in that argument is very simple - they did not sign up, they were drafted. Also, I dont believe the civilian population in Stalingrad signed up for anything either. Whats more, my main point is this - those were moments in history that were likely to fail. That didnt stop someone, and those were both turning points in the war. You forgot the American Revolution.
True, then again, I've never read reports of massive desertions and anti-war protest on the scale of the US war against Vietnam. Many Russians today are still proud to have participated in the "Great Patriotic War".
The American Revolution is a controversial case not necessarily applicable in the context of what we are talking about. Prime Minister William Pitt and other notable members of Great Britain opposed the war. The Americans were very confident of their success. I recall reading a proclamation by someone during that time claiming that due to the vastness of the colonies, the rebellion can defeat all the armies of Europe. This was probably an exaggeration. But it was vindicated by the results. The rebellion has not yet been affirmed by the results.
**Yes, it was. Mao Zedong had grown dissatisfied with the party leaders and saw them as corrupting the Communist Ideology and encroaching on his power. He bypassed the military and sent the adolescent population into a frenzy - in a purge that led to about two million dead. See, basic fact is that if the leaders of a movement are selfish, power -hungry, cruel scum then it is unavoidable that they will try to get rid of the competition.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
**Very interesting. What are those justifications?
To be successful in accomplishing the majority or all of the goals they set out to do. I know this sounds like I'm cheating and it probably is. You can rightfully ask how anyone can possibly know that they will succeed and you will be entitled to ask the question.
I believe the main sticking point with me is the fact that revolutions generally turn out to be counter-productive. Some of them succeed and turn out horribly wrong (witness Russian October Revolution and Chinese Revolution of 1949). On the other hand, many states have consistently proven themselves to possess a certain self-correcting mechanism. I already cited the example of Gorbachev. I can also cite the market reforms currently underway in China. I believe some rebellions are so ill-timed that they failed to overthrow the corrupt status quo but succeeded in preventing the state's self-correcting mechanism from working. So many EV players enthusiastically proclaim their love for the rebellion's cause that they hardly take time to consider carefully what they're supporting.
Good to see you again htjyang. I'm caught up in the middle of a project right now, so I don't have time for a lengthy post, but will soon. I should like to say the following, however! A: I LIKE this topic open. From day one it has been fun to read and participate in. I hope it goes on for a long, long, time yet. At least 'till EV Multiplayer is released - you all know what I mean by that........Heh, heh, heh. B: Confed gunboats eat rebel mantas for breakfast and Confed cruisers have rebel cruisers as a side order. Yeah, and both breakfast and side order are so high-cholestrol that the Cruisers and Gunboats end up dying from heart attacks. So there, too.
Reply to htjyangs' post.
Hmmm, yes, in seventy years.
Let me put it this way. Most nations start out with a system superior to most others at the time (William the Conqueror, for example, was one of the few who had a legal system in a time when the lords pretty much just made their own law) and thus grow stronger. And granted, there are exceptions. But, basically, most huge nations start this way. They start, they get big, people get soft, someone takes over, collapse, anarchy, start over again, eventually. But really, my main point is this: Cruel, totalitarian governments dont just change over their own accord if the people dont demand it. Even in the case of the Soviet Union, there was plenty of discord that facilitated the change.
**It is still my contention that most of the rebellion's population will survive. Even when the French revolutionary government decided to teach Lyons a lesson by bombarding the city after it surrendered, the bulk of its population still survived. As I stated before, the Confederation needs these populations to support its infrastructure. Killing all of them is a waste of time and human resources.
Not even the Nazis wanted to eliminate the Slavic peoples from the face of the earth. They picked on the Jews because the Jews were a small minority. The Slavic peoples far outnumber the Jews. In Hitler's "Mein Kempf", he wanted the Slavic peoples to serve as laborers, not eliminate them. Similarly, the entire rebellion population is probably too large for the Confeds to annihilate. They might kill a large number of them to set an example, but it won't even be the majority.**
Most of the population and kill a large number are very intangible terms that can cover a lot of ground, and could apply to not surrendering as well. The real decision would be about in which scenario more would die.
**You're assuming that the Confederation is a totalitarian system whereas I see it as more of an oligarchy.
I believe the main sticking point with me is the fact that revolutions generally turn out to be counter-productive. Some of them succeed and turn out horribly wrong (witness Russian October Revolution and Chinese Revolution of 1949). On the other hand, many states have consistently proven themselves to possess a certain self-correcting mechanism. I already cited the example of Gorbachev. I can also cite the market reforms currently underway in China. I believe some rebellions are so ill-timed that they failed to overthrow the corrupt status quo but succeeded in preventing the state's self-correcting mechanism from working. So many EV players enthusiastically proclaim their love for the rebellion's cause that they hardly take time to consider carefully what they're supporting.**
I would say this all really boils down to a basic disagreement (or different perceptions) on the nature of the Confederation and the Rebellion.
I take the idealistic view and see the Rebellion as a bunch of severely oppressed people with no legal recourse who started the revolution with the goals of instituting freedom and justice for all - and carry out that intention every step of they way. As such, I believe they are, for the most part, good people, who do everything in their power to protect others and help them live. I believe the Confederation is an elitist government that treated the outer worlds as slaves, and in a brutal and cruel manner to boot.
As far as I can tell you take a skeptical view, that the Rebels are people who started the revolution because they wanted the power the Confederation now has - and dont care how they attain it. They hide behind a smokescreen of lofty ideals to lure people to their ranks and denounce criticizers as Confed supporters. The Confederation on the other hand is a unified government that provides order. It has flaws, among which is a certain ruthlessness (Or detached practicality) and the fact that planets with more population and wealth have a more privileged status, thus leading to unfair treatment of the outer colonies. Basically, though it has its problems, it does not require a Galactic Civil War to fix them.
Fair assessment?
FACE IT PEOPLE!!! THE CONFEDS ARE "BAAAAAADDDD!!!!!!!". Look at the intro text when you start a new pilot!!! It says the Confeds are "BAD!!!". The game of EV dipicts them as the bad guys! Theya are the bad guys of the game!! FACE IT!! Now matter what excuse you bring up, it can't hide the truth: "CONFEDS ARE EVIL!". I could bring up a mountain of reasons for why the Confeds aren't good!! So just except it, the Confeds are EVIL!!!!!
LONG LIVE THE REBELLION!!!!
Originally posted by Captain Carnotaur: **FACE IT PEOPLE!!! THE CONFEDS ARE "BAAAAAADDDD!!!!!!!". Look at the intro text when you start a new pilot!!! It says the Confeds are "BAD!!!".
I can assure you, no where in the introductory text was "BAD!!!" ever used.
**The game of EV dipicts them as the bad guys! Theya are the bad guys of the game!! FACE IT!! Now matter what excuse you bring up, it can't hide the truth: "CONFEDS ARE EVIL!". I could bring up a mountain of reasons for why the Confeds aren't good!! So just except it, the Confeds are EVIL!!!!!
I think Begemotike had done a better job bringing up "a mountain of reasons for why the Confeds aren't good." Nor do I dispute those reasons. What I am trying to do is to point out that the rebellion can hardly be regarded as a better alternative.
**LONG LIVE THE REBELLION!!!!
Actually, the Confederation has existed longer than the rebellion. After all, a rebellion cannot exist without a status quo being established in the first place.
Originally posted by Begemotike: **Reply to htjyangs' post.
Miracles do happen. Maybe not as often as we prefer. Then again, luck is not subject to a schedule of appearance.
**Let me put it this way. Most nations start out with a system superior to most others at the time (William the Conqueror, for example, was one of the few who had a legal system in a time when the lords pretty much just made their own law) and thus grow stronger. And granted, there are exceptions. But, basically, most huge nations start this way. They start, they get big, people get soft, someone takes over, collapse, anarchy, start over again, eventually. But really, my main point is this: Cruel, totalitarian governments dont just change over their own accord if the people dont demand it. Even in the case of the Soviet Union, there was plenty of discord that facilitated the change.
Agreed. That is why the people of the Confederation should follow the non-violent approach adopted by Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. rather than the bloody approach advocated by the rebels. Never forget that these two examples are success stories.
**Most of the population and kill a large number are very intangible terms that can cover a lot of ground, and could apply to not surrendering as well. The real decision would be about in which scenario more would die.
True. Since we have no figures in terms of how many have died during the war and how many have died during the oppression, I guess we'll just have to leave it at that.
**I would say this all really boils down to a basic disagreement (or different perceptions) on the nature of the Confederation and the Rebellion.
Agreed.
**I take the idealistic view and see the Rebellion as a bunch of severely oppressed people with no legal recourse who started the revolution with the goals of instituting freedom and justice for all - and carry out that intention every step of they way. As such, I believe they are, for the most part, good people, who do everything in their power to protect others and help them live. I believe the Confederation is an elitist government that treated the outer worlds as slaves, and in a brutal and cruel manner to boot.
Let's not forget that what people say can be very different from what they actually do and what they do to achieve what they say.
Legal recourse is a relative term. Dr. King marched without a permit therefore the march was illegal. However, he gladly accepted the consequences (being imprisoned). He believes that by challenging the unjust application of a just law and accepting the consequences, he was showing the highest respect for the law. The rebels on the other hand refused to accept the consequences and sought to escape them by hoarding arms and using terrorist tactics.
As for protecting others, the best way to protect others is to persuade them not to take up arms against the oppressors. Again, I cite the example of civil disobedience. Dr. King and Gandhi both asked their fellow brethren not to use violence. From this comparison, one can deduce that the rebels asked others to take up arms (even paying others to take up arms) precisely because they wanted bloodshed.
You will also notice that I never disputed the fact (presented by the introductory text) that the Confeds were brutal and oppressive.
**As far as I can tell you take a skeptical view, that the Rebels are people who started the revolution because they wanted the power the Confederation now has - and dont care how they attain it. They hide behind a smokescreen of lofty ideals to lure people to their ranks and denounce criticizers as Confed supporters. The Confederation on the other hand is a unified government that provides order. It has flaws, among which is a certain ruthlessness (Or detached practicality) and the fact that planets with more population and wealth have a more privileged status, thus leading to unfair treatment of the outer colonies. Basically, though it has its problems, it does not require a Galactic Civil War to fix them.
Yes. The phrase "Galactic Civil War" underlines nicely the scale of the conflict thus the scale of suffering.