UNSC or Insurrectionists

Arc Trooper 48 wrote:

Reading some of these comments, I can safely say.....you're all traitors to the UEG and are under arrest!!!!

In all seriousness though, how can you side with the innies? The UNSC and the UEG did nothing wrong (leaving out ONI for specific reasons) and this all could've been settled peacefully, but no, you innies had to go and blow yourselves up. UNSC all the way.

"Far Isle was a human colony world. In 2492, a massive insurrectionist uprising occurred on the planet. The United Nations Space Command was unable to contain the rebellion, prompting the UNSC to declare code bandersnatch: the UNSC used nuclear weapons to raze the colony."

So the UEG and UNSC did nothing wrong eh?

Arc Trooper 48 wrote:

Youngling wrote:

Arc Trooper 48 wrote:

Reading some of these comments, I can safely say.....you're all traitors to the UEG and are under arrest!!!!

In all seriousness though, how can you side with the innies? The UNSC and the UEG did nothing wrong (leaving out ONI for specific reasons) and this all could've been settled peacefully, but no, you innies had to go and blow yourselves up. UNSC all the way.

"Far Isle was a human colony world. In 2492, a massive insurrectionist uprising occurred on the planet. The United Nations Space Command was unable to contain the rebellion, prompting the UNSC to declare code bandersnatch: the UNSC used nuclear weapons to raze the colony."

So the UEG and UNSC did nothing wrong eh?

The UNSC aren't the only ones who use nukes. Didn't the innies nuke a city full of civilians? You tell me, what's worse? I'm guessing the UNSC lost the whole area, and instead of giving the innies a huge stronghold, they made sure that didn't happen. War is rough. At least the UNSC were being strategic with their nukes and didn't purposely kill civilians.

That last part about intent is what so few people seem to realize or care about. In war civilians tragically die, but what matters in terms of morality is if a deliberate attempt is made to kill civilians specifically.

That is why a nuclear bombing is legal if the target is military in nature, but specifially targeting civilians is blatantly a war crime. Look at the stratigic bombing of WWII or the atomic bombings of Hiroshima, tragic and Absolutly horrible, but militarily justifiable and legal. Attacks specially to kill civilians are war crimes. That is the difference - collateral vs intentional. Proportional is also a thing to look at, but it's not given enough detail on Far Isle to determine that, but knowing the UNSC's way it fought the Innsurection I'm willing to assume that there was no feasae way to eliminate the insurgents without heavy ground casualties or even at all.

All Innie bombings have been purely terroristic in nature (that's a fact) and even if they were a state actor it would be a war crime.

Bloody innies, should let the covenant glass them.

Hylias Hero wrote:

Where does the info about the UEG being a one party state come from?

It doesn't. Nowhere is it stated that the UEG is a one party state.

Well, it is heavily implied that the UEG is basically a puppet-state for UNSC Highcom, which itself is basically ruled by ONI - I mean, the UEG was defunct 2525-2552 for obvious reasons, and they never had any say in the matter.

But one-party it has never been called. Honestly, I doubt it'd even have a party system - being an organizational descendant of the UN, it seems likely the government would hold liberal, democratic socialist values, with a heavy emphasis on security and defense coming from the power of the UNSC. It could be something like the Galactic senate of Star Wars - all the worlds under the control of the UEG are too different to be managed by a right/left party system by you elect representatives to bring unique issues up independent of liberal and conserve wings in order to address the unique needs of each colony, rather than electing representatives to build up a party and sub-ideology like we do today. It works well for a single nation, but likely not for a world or an interstellar conglomerate.

Just some speculation.

Death to rebel scum! The empire shall rise again and destroy the resistance once and for all!

You step out of line, you suffer the consequences...

CherokeeVolf wrote:

Some of the insurrectionists are just terrorists. However the entire war against them didn't have to happen if ONI just let them rule themselves. No one in the UNSC even saw independence as an option including Doctor Halsey. She said that humanity would be engulfed in war without huge military action in the colonies in a certain time frame in her journal. The good colonies could have been given independence and shown as an example but I feel that ONI would not have accepted the loss in power and control. I would like to see a game with the innies in it though.

That's like saying that empires are obligated to give up territory, and control of resources just to appease the peasants desire to do things themselves, independence is not always a good thing.
It would only weaken the position of humanity in a hostile galaxy if suddenly their colonies went indepentent and we're not under any kind of streamlined command. Take the rubble, Eridanus secondus and Gao for instance. Innies there were prepared to abandon their very species cause they believed that the UNSC/UEG was no longer their concern.

UNSC ALL THE WAY!

LeLegacyOfTywin wrote:

CherokeeVolf wrote:

JoelWelsh1998 wrote:

CherokeeVolf wrote:

Some of the insurrectionists are just terrorists. However the entire war against them didn't have to happen if ONI just let them rule themselves. No one in the UNSC even saw independence as an option including Doctor Halsey. She said that humanity would be engulfed in war without huge military action in the colonies in a certain time frame in her journal. The good colonies could have been given independence and shown as an example but I feel that ONI would not have accepted the loss in power and control. I would like to see a game with the innies in it though.

That's like saying that empires are obligated to give up territory, and control of resources just to appease the peasants desire to do things themselves, independence is not always a good thing.
It would only weaken the position of humanity in a hostile galaxy if suddenly their colonies went indepentent and we're not under any kind of streamlined command. Take the rubble, Eridanus secondus and Gao for instance. Innies there were prepared to abandon their very species cause they believed that the UNSC/UEG was no longer their concern.

That is correct they are not obligated. But then they shouldn't be surprised by the constant rebellions and eventual complete destruction of their empire. Giving independence and establishing strong economic ties would be stronger and more preferred than the start of several warring factions when the UEG and UNSC collapse.

Well, technically the colonies already had a lot of independence, choosing their own leadership for instance. Thus, the insurrectionists were nothing but oportunists who craved more power for themselves. Therfore, the UNSC have no legitemate reasons to tolerate their rebellions. Many insurrections also wanted to create states with alternative ideologies to democracy and were often pure military states.

If ONI approved their choice. The UNSC would be completely in the right if ONI had any restrictions and oversight. Instead they spy on the UEG, the people, the UNSC, and mess with the Sangheili. The people live in constant fear of ONI, in Halo: Fractures one of the stories are about Osman's new team of "ferrets". They have full leave to kill anyone they want with no punishment or warnings, and all they have to do is clean up the mess. Without ONI the innies should be crushed, but they do exist and that means some of the innies are full on freedom fighters.

Honestly, All the UNSC needs is a change of leadership. If one rebellion succeeds it may spark others in different systems. In the end, in order to keep the human race fully united, it would be better to just replace the leaders.