Which Side Would You Support?

[Omegablue]

I would say the killing the returning Mars Base fleet counts, especially since they were unarmed. Assassinating the UN's Prime Ministr might qualify, too. Also destroying one of the Grand Cannons. Yes, it was a weapon, but its direction was turned pretty clearly OUTWARD. It couldn't be used to attack any target on earth.

Then the USA and Nato are terrorists considering the amount of civilian targets and political assassinations they've done since WW2? Regardless if "accident", they "terrorized" innocent people with bombing raids and etc.

[Gubaba]

Then the USA and Nato are terrorists considering the amount of civilian targets and political assassinations they've done since WW2? Regardless if "accident", they "terrorized" innocent people with bombing raids and etc.

That's neither here nor there, really. I'm saying that the Anti-Unification League committed terrorist acts. Telling me that others have, too, doesn't really address the issue.

So let me ask you: why isn't killing, unprovoked, the unarmed Mars Base fleet a terrorist act?

[Agent ONE]

You would choose whatever side you were born on. That is how people pick sides in war.

[sketchley]

So let me ask you: why isn't killing, unprovoked, the unarmed Mars Base fleet a terrorist act?

Hold up a sec. I haven't come across anywhere that has said, clearly, if the return fleet was or was not armed (you know Macross... if it's not clearly stated...)

How do we know it wasn't provoked? On the other hand, how would you react to your opponent amassing a large space fleet that, due to lack of knowledge/faulty intelligence, you perceived to be composed of reaction missile equipped space destroyers that are capable of striking any point on the globe? Like, the VFs and Destroids were specifically designed for anti-alien use, but their first application was fighting other humans and all that.

[VF-15 Banshee]

Then the USA and Nato are terrorists considering the amount of civilian targets and political assassinations they've done since WW2? Regardless if "accident", they "terrorized" innocent people with bombing raids and etc.

How about we not bring real-life into a discussion of a space science-fiction cartoon?

[Dynaman]

I would side neither side (Macross, ignoring the latest posts...) is the "good guys". Both the UN and Anti-UN are shown to have noble and ignoble aspects.

[Gubaba]

Hold up a sec. I haven't come across anywhere that has said, clearly, if the return fleet was or was not armed (you know Macross... if it's not clearly stated...)

How do we know it wasn't provoked? On the other hand, how would you react to your opponent amassing a large space fleet that, due to lack of knowledge/faulty intelligence, you perceived to be composed of reaction missile equipped space destroyers that are capable of striking any point on the globe? Like, the VFs and Destroids were specifically designed for anti-alien use, but their first application was fighting other humans and all that.

It's in "Misa Hayase: White Reminiscences."

Admittedly, the Mars Base crew was evacuated in order to become soldiers on earth (which is why the Anti-Unification League killed them) but they were unarmed at the time.

[Freiflug88]

IIRC, isn't Nora's word all we have to go on as far as who invented the variable system? The Anti-UN definitely had the first combat-ready VF out there, and the SV-51's development was supposedly a year or two ahead of where the VF-0 was, but was variable fighter technology developed independently or was it something both sides got from OTEC? (sketchley, any thoughts or nuggets of fact on this?)

What about the fact that the Anti-UN rolled out transforming Octos destroids two years before the UN deployed their non-transforming Cheyenne destroids? I would argue that is strong supporting evidence that Nora was correct in saying the UN stole variable technology from the Anti-UN.

Also destroying one of the Grand Cannons. Yes, it was a weapon, but its direction was turned pretty clearly OUTWARD. It couldn't be used to attack any target on earth.

1. It could have been used to attack Anti-UN space fleets.

2. Perhaps local Anti-UN rebels were just very pissed that the UN was seizing their properties to install massive WMDs they never even wanted in the first place?

It's in "Misa Hayase: White Reminiscences."

Admittedly, the Mars Base crew was evacuated in order to become soldiers on earth (which is why the Anti-Unification League killed them) but they were unarmed at the time.

Armed with weapons or not. It seems to me like the Mars Base crew already swore they were willing die in the name of UN world government.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Freiflug88

[Gubaba]

1. It could have been used to attack Anti-UN space fleets.

They had no space fleets until they hijacked one.

2. Perhaps local Anti-UN rebels were just very pissed that the UN was seizing their properties to install massive WMDs they never even wanted in the first place?

They caused guerilla warfare across America...there were no attacks in Australia EXCEPT the Grand Cannon destruction.

[sketchley]

They caused guerilla warfare across America...there were no attacks in Australia EXCEPT the Grand Cannon destruction.

... and where has it been specifically stated that there were no other attacks in Australia? The source material I've been reading states that local disputes occurred EVERYWHERE.

[Gubaba]

... and where has it been specifically stated that there were no other attacks in Australia? The source material I've been reading states that local disputes occurred EVERYWHERE.

Hmm...I can't recall. Can you give me an example?

[azrael]

Weren't DD and Nora part of the test-pilot program for the UN VF and then they defected? In the end, the Anti-UN beat the UN to the punch with the first combat-ready VF. And that's all that matters.

And as mentioned, I think people would join whichever side they came from that benefited or didn't benefit from unification. If you personally think your country would benefit, they you would have agreed with the plan and sided with Unification. If you didn't agree, then you would have sided with Anti-Unification. One side calls it acts of terrorism and genocide while the other side sees it as fighting oppression. I don't believe there is a right answer in this case. It's no different that what history has taught us about this subject.

[Seto Kaiba]

Hold up a sec. I haven't come across anywhere that has said, clearly, if the return fleet was or was not armed (you know Macross... if it's not clearly stated...)

Hm... neither have I, but I've always assumed that the Mars return fleet was either unarmed or only lightly armed, since the whole fleet was wiped out by a single hijacked UN Forces missile destroyer.

What about the fact that the Anti-UN rolled out transforming Octos destroids two years before the UN deployed their non-transforming Cheyenne destroids? I would argue that is strong supporting evidence that Nora was correct in saying the UN stole variable technology from the Anti-UN.

's kind of an apples and oranges thing going on there, actually. The 2006 date given for the Octos is the rollout of the very first completed Octus unit, whereas the 2008 date given for the Mk.III Cheyenne platform was for the operational deployment of mass produced Cheyenne destroids. I'll have to have a look at Chroncle later (or maybe sketchley will field this one before I get to it), but I don't believe we have a date for the start of production or first test unit rollout for both units, so we can't really say which one came first. Also remember, the UN completed their first working variable fighter in 2004, two years before the rollout of the first transforming Octos destroid.

1. It could have been used to attack Anti-UN space fleets.

2. Perhaps local Anti-UN rebels were just very pissed that the UN was seizing their properties to install massive WMDs they never even wanted in the first place?

Did the Anti-UN even have a space fleet of their own? The latter seems more likely, but all things considered I'd guess that the cost of buildings those massive weapons (and the toll it was doubtless taking on the world economy) was probably reason enough for them to take a whack at blowing one up.

Weren't DD and Nora part of the test-pilot program for the UN VF and then they defected? In the end, the Anti-UN beat the UN to the punch with the first combat-ready VF. And that's all that matters.

Well, D.D. Ivanov was... but IIRC Nora was his protege from after his defection (in which he took the VF-0's development data to the Anti-UN) just like Roy was his protege during his time as the VF-0's principal test pilot.

[Freiflug88]

Where does it say the Anti-UN never had any space fleet of their own?

[Seto Kaiba]

Where does it say the Anti-UN never had any space fleet of their own?

Where does it say that they did?

(Really, if the Anti-UN had ships of their own, why'd they need to hijack an Oberth-class destroyer? They already had reaction weaponry, and weren't at all shy about using it, so they didn't need it for the ordinance.)

[Gubaba]

Where does it say the Anti-UN never had any space fleet of their own?

If they had their own space fleet, why would they need to hijack the UN's Oberth-class ship?

[azrael]

Perhaps I need to be less subtle.

Who cares what each side had. That's not the subject of this conversation. Get back to the subject of this thread or lock.

[anime52k8]

Did the Anti-UN even have a space fleet of their own? The latter seems more likely, but all things considered I'd guess that the cost of buildings those massive weapons (and the toll it was doubtless taking on the world economy) was probably reason enough for them to take a whack at blowing one up.

And you know what the real tragedy of it all is? A construction job of that magnitude would have taken way more man power than the UN forces had to offer, they would have had to bring in independent contractors to get it done; plumbers, roofers, aluminum siders, thousands of people needed to get the job done. And then The Anti-UN blows it up and now all those innocent contractors are dead, casualties of a war they had nothing to do with.

[sketchley]

And you know what the real tragedy of it all is? A construction job of that magnitude would have taken way more man power than the UN forces had to offer, they would have had to bring in independent contractors to get it done; plumbers, roofers, aluminum siders, thousands of people needed to get the job done. And then The Anti-UN blows it up and now all those innocent contractors are dead, casualties of a war they had nothing to do with.

I think you're confusing the Unified Forces with the Unified Government (the UF was approximately equally matched to the AUA's forces, the UG was composed of approximately 1/2 of the world's population (or 1/3, pending on how you divide things).

Nevertheless, it's a good point: most of the people participating in the reconstruction & renovation of the SDF-1 were civilians (politically aligned, but not necessarily anything more than that). The same should logically hold true for other construction projects.

[azrael]

Nevertheless, it's a good point: most of the people participating in the reconstruction & renovation of the SDF-1 were civilians (politically aligned, but not necessarily anything more than that). The same should logically hold true for other construction projects.

So we come back to this; does the killing of innocent lives justify being left out of the tech party and crapped on by those who wanted unification? Would that affect which side you would choose?

[Omegablue]

That's neither here nor there, really. I'm saying that the Anti-Unification League committed terrorist acts. Telling me that others have, too, doesn't really address the issue.

So let me ask you: why isn't killing, unprovoked, the unarmed Mars Base fleet a terrorist act?

I hear you, killing innocent civilians is wrong, and is a terrorist act. You are right.

Though since that's the actual case, then both sides in a war are terrorists, as they take innocent life that hasn't provoked anyone. Thus the USA and Europe are as guilty when we invade other countries.

Civilians are harmed there. Civilians are forced to flee in terror from their homes. That's terrorism.

The moment you lift a weapon at someone that isn't for self defense, you're invoking terror in that person to manipulate whatever outcome against that person's present state. Then you're a terrorist.

Regardless of whatever political cause or situation, if someone is frightened with a weapon, is an act of terrorism.

At the end the Anti-UN are bastards. Their actions not justifiable. But in war there's always two sides, and whatever lead them to be being such bastards, could have been provoked by previous wrong doings of the UN?

(And please don't think this a personal attack at you. Sometimes reading forums can misinterpret the tone of voices we hear along with the words. Not the case here, just chatting. I think you're awesome member and enjoy reading your posts. )

Edited May 3, 2012 by Omegablue

[Keith]

Excuse me, I don't mean to inturrupt, but well i'm a contractor myself, i'm a roofer, and speaking as a roofer i can tell you a roofers personal politics come into play heavily when choosing jobs. Three weeks ago I was offered a job up in the hills, beautiful houses, tons of property, A simple reshingling job. They told me if I could finish it in one day, I would double my price. But then I realized who's house it was, Dominic "Babyface" Bambino's, the gangster. The money was right, but the risk was too high. I knew who he was, and based on that I turned the job over to a friend of mine. And the next week, the Foresy family put a hit on hit on Babyfaces house. My friend was shot and killed, didn't even finish reshingling. I'm alive because I knew the risk involved in that particular client, my friend wasn't so lucky. Any contractor working on that Orbital Fleet knew the risk involved. If they got killed it's their fault. A contracter listens to his heart, not his wallet.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Keith

[Omegablue]

Agree with you Keith. And very tragic story he have to carry with there everyday. Sorry for your friend.

Back on topic, sometimes the situation defers with the endless possible circumstances, like perhaps those working for the UN, really needed a job to feed the family.

Still if anyone goes to work for a military operation, regardless as a carpenter or a nurse, you do allow yourself to be a military target, and lose your status a innocent and unaware civilian.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Omegablue

[sketchley]

So we come back to this; does the killing of innocent lives justify being left out of the tech party and crapped on by those who wanted unification? Would that affect which side you would choose?

Ah, but innocent lives were killed on both sides, and both sides are fighting for the tech party (and eventually the side that was being crapped on, also wanted unification).

Anyhow, was glancing at some of the history pages in MC, and a word stuck out to me: resources. It led to thoughts of something that has been overlooked in our debates in this thread (following is neither for nor against either side. Just pointing out the facts):

When the ASS-1 landed, it damaged a large swath of the world (the removal of the top 1,000 m of Mt. Everest is specifically mentioned). Resources are needed to repair the damage. However, one side of the conflict required that the resources of the entire world be put into investigating the ASS-1 and developing technologies from it to defend against the aliens.

After the conclusion of the Unification War, and midway through the First Interstellar War, the Unified Government is more concerned with rebuilding the damage from the Unification War (nevermind the damage from the ASS-1's arrival), and doing it's best to hide the existence of aliens, as they don't want to stir up the kind of trouble that resulted in the Unification War in the first place, all over again.

Now, analyzing the above (again, following is not biased toward any one side), we know that the Unification War was pretty darn large (truly reached all corners of the globe), the damage was pretty great (years after the conclusion, it's still just starting to be sorted out), and the line between the winner and loser was pretty thin (up until the Birdman Incident, it was a stalemate. After that incident, the AUA fell apart).

Alas, the producers of Macross have decided to vilify the AUA (probably because they're the enemy of M0, and the Unification War is only mentioned in passing during the introduction of SDFM). So, I don't think we'll ever get a clear image of what exactly transpired.

So... to answer the question (does it affect which side I choose): no. 'cause the side I chose was for reconstruction and a fairer distribution of resources (including the technology obtained from the ASS-1).

[Jefuemon]

Agree with you Keith. And very tragic story he have to carry with there everyday. Sorry for your friend.

Keith was just making point here, not telling a personal story

http://youtu.be/dGOVbXF7Iog

Edited May 3, 2012 by Jefuemon

[reddsun1]

Keith was just making point here, not telling a personal story

LOL, you beat me to it. When I first read his post, I was like: Da fu*k? Is he shi**in'? Is he--is he f'ing quoting a movie or something? (but I've never actually seen Clerks)

Edited May 3, 2012 by reddsun1

[Keith]

Keith was just making point here, not telling a personal story

http://youtu.be/dGOVbXF7Iog

LOL, Seto & Mike started it, someone had to finish

[Omegablue]

LOL. I got done. Well played.

But Clerks is a film I've well forgotten.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Omegablue

[azrael]

The moment you lift a weapon at someone that isn't for self defense, you're invoking terror in that person to manipulate whatever outcome against that person's present state. Then you're a terrorist.

Regardless of whatever political cause or situation, if someone is frightened with a weapon, is an act of terrorism.

...

At the end the Anti-UN are bastards. Their actions not justifiable.

Ah, but... (as sketchley notes)

Anyhow, was glancing at some of the history pages in MC, and a word stuck out to me: resources.

...Would not providing resources for humanitarian aid or what not be just as bad as pointing a gun in your face? You would let innocents suffer, potentially die, because the leadership of nation decided not to join the club? That would make the UN the bastards as well.

But in war there's always two sides, and whatever lead them to be being such bastards, could have been provoked by previous wrong doings of the UN?

The UN may not have pointed a gun, but they would let innocents die.

Perhaps a question to ask is, assume we haven't seen the endgame yet and we're back to the zero-sum game (M0 hasn't happened yet, we don't know the Zentradi are coming or that they will be nukin' the site from orbit, etc.). Would that affect which side you choose?

[Omegablue]

...Would not providing resources for humanitarian aid or what not be just as bad as pointing a gun in your face? You would let innocents suffer, potentially die, because the leadership of nation decided not to join the club? That would make the UN the bastards as well.

The UN may not have pointed a gun, but they would let innocents die.

Perhaps a question to ask is, assume we haven't seen the endgame yet and we're back to the zero-sum game (M0 hasn't happened yet, we don't know the Zentradi are coming or that they will be nukin' the site from orbit, etc.). Would that affect which side you choose?

You're right.

But I did somewhat already point this out.

But in war there's always two sides, and whatever lead them to be being such bastards, could have been provoked by previous wrong doings of the UN?

Which brings me another draw back from our real world. The situation in Darfur. The country has no resources that gets interest from the West, and the world isn't saving them.

So pretty much everyone is a terrorist when politics and profit are involved.

We can also bring into this how the West is trying re-invent Chavez as a "bad guy", simply because he gave the middle finger to Western corporations that wanted to dry up Venezuela's resources.

From that we can argue that Macross UN has also committed a similar act that forced the creation of the Anti-UN.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Omegablue

[Dynaman]

We can also bring into this how the West is trying re-invent Chavez as a "bad guy", simply because he gave the middle finger to Western corporations that wanted to dry up Venezuela's resources. From that we can argue that Macross UN has also committed a similar act that forced the creation of the Anti-UN.

He was a bad guy, films like the motorcycle diary are trying to humanize the guy rather then demonize.

[Omegablue]

He was a bad guy, films like the motorcycle diary are trying to humanize the guy rather then demonize.

Point proven. See, the West, USA, NATO, the Queen, all say he's a bad guy, and what happens, that seed is stuck in us, because surely the good guys cannot lie on TV? Right?

[Dynaman]

Point proven. See, the West, USA, NATO, the Queen, all say he's a bad guy, and what happens, that seed is stuck in us, because surely the good guys cannot lie on TV? Right?

Whoops, nevermind, I was thinking Che Guevara... Hugo, although I seriously doubt is a good guy, is only protrayed as a blowhard, opinionated, vain, glory seeker here in the US, or in other words - a typical politician.

[sharky]

I'd take sides with The Birdman. Anything less and you're bound to be labeled a kadun.

[Omegablue]

Whoops, nevermind, I was thinking Che Guevara... Hugo, although I seriously doubt is a good guy, is only protrayed as a blowhard, opinionated, vain, glory seeker here in the US, or in other words - a typical politician.

All good.

Sure, but he's not the monster the West is painting him as.

Let give you an example of the media distort events through the course of time.

I grew up, and lived most of my life South Africa. Still love this country.

However during the dark ages, Nelson M@ndela did commit terrorist acts. Bombs and etc.

And now, he's a saint. All the bad he did is red taped in the archive rooms. He actually didn't even save this country and it's people, cause he was in prison all the time.

What saved this country was when TV footage started reaching the rest of the world about the crimes of the aparthied. Which resulted in international pressure.

But M@ndela... Well he was transformed to look like a Martin Luthar King (Now he was a hero), a symbol for the people to follow while international banks sponsored him to get into the countries resources.

But really, when you ask people here what did Nelson do? They say he saved the country and lead the people to freedom. And when you ask how, they say he never gave up. That is all they can come with.

No, he didn't save the country... TV and international pressure did. He's just a poster man.

And this technique is also used when a person needs to be re-invented as the bad guy. Time can hide things.

So who's side can we really pick, when it's all a creation of someone else idealogies for personal gain?