Warfare: Transfans and Real-World Conflict
Botch the Crab
posted to this board inquiring as to the general sentiment of the
group regarding the war. Almost immediately, a number of responses
came in declaring the question off-topic, which I believe is entirely
correct. I do not believe that the war in Iraq, or any real-world
military conflict in particular, is proper material for discussion in
this newsgroup, which should be focused solely on and about
Transformers.
However, the initial truncated discussion raised several interesting
questions in my mind, questions which I believe *are* on-topic for
this group:
How does being an ardent fan of a warfare-based toy line influence
your opinion about real-world military conflict? In an age where many
are questioning the role of violence in entertainment (including
children's toys), do you feel that fans of The Transformers may be
less likely to balk at things military in nature?
Does anyone percieve a corollary between Transfandom and warfare
enthusiasts? (By warfare enthusiast, I generally mean in a historical
context, such as WWII buffs, not any current or recent conflict.) Are
there any Transfans that are also warfare enthusiasts? Are there any
Transfans that are staunchly anti-war? If there are any anti-war
Tranfans, would anyone see this as a mild hypocrisy?
Lastly, many fans consider themselves sympathetic either to the
Autobots or Decepticons. Does this in any way influence your opinion
about real-world conflict? Perhaps reflecting a more idealistic or
pragmatic viewpoint?
Granted, the Transformers are an idealistic, fantastical and dramatic
representation of military conflict, but the fundamentals are
inherently similar. The Transformers wouldn't be the same if they ever
found a lasting peace; we must admit that we would no longer find them
as interesting without the war. But how does this desire for "War
Without End" compare to our sentiments about actual war?
~ Botch
Botch's Transformers Box Art Archive
http://www.BotchTheCrab.com/archive
The Invincible Doctor Psyclops Invasion
http://www.DrPsyclops.com
Jackpot
>
> How does being an ardent fan of a warfare-based toy line influence
> your opinion about real-world military conflict?
That's a damn good question. It's something that's popped to mind for
me more than once. For instance, I just did a TF art piece a couple of
weeks ago, coincidentally right in the middle of the war, and my
decision about the subject matter *was* influenced somewhat. I had a
couple of ideas to go with, and one of them (which had already been
pencilled-out) had a character on the ground, battered up a bit, with
missiles flying at him and such. It was something I'd started months
ago, but with the sudden parallels to our real-life battles, I decided
it would be in bad taste to finish it while the war was still on. So
instead, I went with another of my old ideas - Shrapnel flying through a
nondescript anime-speed-lines dimension, firing electric bolts at no one
in particular.
And that, I think, shows how I view TF violence in contrast to real-
world violence. TF violence is fantasy, with lasers and invisibility
and soldiers who can get blown apart a few times and put right back
together again. If I ever feel like I'm emphasizing the "real" too
much, I can pull farther back into the unreal (which the TF universe
provides plenty of).
> In an age where many
> are questioning the role of violence in entertainment (including
> children's toys), do you feel that fans of The Transformers may be
> less likely to balk at things military in nature?
I wouldn't doubt it. It's a self-sustaining cycle: People who are
already repulsed by violence would be less likely to get into TFs, so
they go their own way. Meanwhile, those who are less put off - or who
enjoy - violence will be more likely to get into TFs, and once they're
in, the enjoyment of violence is reinforced.
In a closed system, the conclusion one might come to is that TFs promote
violence. But in the real world, where TFs are only one small factor in
our experiences, I've found that my attitudes toward war and violence
have been shaped far more my actual events in life than any cartoon. I
love TF more than can possibly be healthy, but that doesn't stop me from
wishing that another war will never be fought on this planet again.
> Are
> there any Transfans that are also warfare enthusiasts?
I'm not. I mean, I think wars make interesting history, as far as
history goes, and they certainly make good drama, but my "enthusiasm"
for such things has never come anywhere near the level of a hobby.
> Are there any
> Transfans that are staunchly anti-war? If there are any anti-war
> Tranfans, would anyone see this as a mild hypocrisy?
I wouldn't think of it as necessarily hypocritical, since most anti-war
folks are concerned with the human cost - the lives taken or ruined, the
environments destroyed, and so forth. But for TFs, death is a
notoriously easy thing to dodge, there's no such thing as permanent
mutilation, and the damage done to Cybertron is often presented as being
equally reparable. (And the TFs' effect on Earth (excepting some of
Furman's writing) has traditionally been pretty mild.)
Now, if someone is pacifistic because he or she believes that fighting
under any circumstance is unjustifiable, "anger leads to hate, hate
leads to suffering," all that... then I *would* question what, exactly,
such a person GETS out of TF. The one "pro-war" sentiment that I expect
to find in every Transfan is the belief that sometimes you just have to
fight. That, admirable as pacifism may be, there are times when the
cost of surrender outweighs the cost of war.
> Lastly, many fans consider themselves sympathetic either to the
> Autobots or Decepticons. Does this in any way influence your opinion
> about real-world conflict? Perhaps reflecting a more idealistic or
> pragmatic viewpoint?
Since I don't "align" myself with any TF faction in particular, I might
not be qualified to comment. But I will say that I think those who DO
identify with a particular side very often read their own pre-formed
beliefs into the "ideals" that the 'toon and comic so vaguely present.
For instance, 'Bot supporters tend to believe that the 'Bots are
champions of democracy, despite the fact that we've always seen them
being led by lone dictators (benevolent though they may be). (Well,
there was the old-time Council of Elders in the UK comics, but there's
no guarantee that THEY were elected to their places of power any more
than Ultra Magnus or Rodimus Prime were in the Movie. And besides, it's
been a looooooong time since there even WAS a CoE.)
So, similarly, I would think that anyone's existing beliefs about the
necessity and value of war would simply be read into the side they
support. For instance, 'Con supporters have sometimes justified 'Con
aggression by asserting that there's no other choice to revitalize
Cybertron, that Autobot rule would stagnate and suffocate the planet,
that other forms of energy-gathering (such as deep-space solar
collectors and such) are either technically unfeasible or simply too
vulnerable to Autobot attack... and so the only remaining option is to
plunder inhabited worlds, since the 'Bots are less likely to go full-
bore when fleshies are running around underfoot.
However, none of those ideas are present in the fiction. The 'Cons
simply attack Earth, and the 'Bots simply try to stop them. If a 'Con
supporter feels it necessary to make the 'Con actions more palatable, or
if a 'Bot supporter thinks the 'Bots are living embodiments of freedom
and equality, then that just demonstrates the way our own ideas permeate
our views of TF.
- Jackpot
--
| To contact me, please e-mail aquamandible [at] yahoo [dot] com.
|
|
| Art portfolio - TF and more:
|
| _ _ ______ http://spektakle.com ______ _ _
"The `k's are for the kwality!"
Thunderous Citizen Iron Moose!
message news:Xns93617613...@216.174.194.50...
<Snip. >
I've got nothing whatsoever to add to these posts, but I'm very happy
they exist.
--
Alex Amar;
Baron...@Yahoo.Ca
Robert Powers
Behold! On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:35:11 +0000 (UTC), Jackpot
<i_do_not_read_an...@hotmail.com> did speak:
>Botch the Crab wrote:
>For instance, 'Bot supporters tend to believe that the 'Bots are
>champions of democracy, despite the fact that we've always seen them
>being led by lone dictators (benevolent though they may be). (Well,
Not to disagree with the heart of your argument, but I dunno if that's
an entirely fair assessment. Most times we've met him, Optimus Prime is
just leading a tiny band of followers -- more like a tribe than a
full-scale society. And you have to consider their unusual situation --
they're facing an enemy that's pretty well set on their destruction, maybe
regardless of what actions they do or don't take. They're a military
organization almost by default, and simple survival demands an autocratic
command structure. Some takes on the story also have the Autobots as the
designated military of their society, and again, Prime would be their top
general, not a king or whatnot.
The comics (US #14) were fairly explicit that any Autobot could leave if
he so desired, and Prime said he'd step down if the Autobots so desired.
Sounds.... kinda democratic, at least. On the other hand, US #1 also
showed him addressing some leader-type dude as "sire". Make of that what
you will....
--
Robert Powers
repo...@uwm.edu ________________________________________
| Built St. Louis |
| http://www.BuiltStLouis.net/ |
|________ Tracking the city's endangered architecture _|
maacprime
much to do with Transformers since I became a fan of the show
primarily because of the characters.
That being said I am pro-war and that was butressed in part by my
belief (reinforced by rooting for the Autobots while watching the GI
show and reading the comic) that you have to be prepared to engage in
war to prevent oppression and terminate the military ambitions of
would-be tyrants.
And like Prime said, "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings".
Desperado00
>much to do with Transformers since I became a fan of the show
>primarily because of the characters.
I'm just waiting for an Autobot based on the late, great George S. Patton. "No
son-of-a-scrapheap ever won a war by dying for his country. He won the war by
making some other son-of-a-scrapheap die for his country." Can so much
military genius be packed into one tiny robot? I think not.
-----
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
An egotist is a self-made man who worships his creator.
If we aren't meant to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?
No horse is too dead to beat.
Jackpot
>
> Jackpot did speak:
>>
>> For instance, 'Bot supporters tend to believe that the 'Bots are
>> champions of democracy, despite the fact that we've always seen them
>> being led by lone dictators (benevolent though they may be).
>
> an entirely fair assessment. Most times we've met him, Optimus Prime
> is just leading a tiny band of followers -- more like a tribe than a
> full-scale society. And you have to consider their unusual situation
> -- they're facing an enemy that's pretty well set on their
> destruction, maybe regardless of what actions they do or don't take.
Oh, I fully agree that there are reasons for the command structure as we
see it. In the simplest terms, what we're looking at is a military
operation, and as such, there's no reason to expect any kind of
democratic decision-making.
My point, though, is that that's ALL we see. Autobot society as a whole
may very well be governed by elected representatives in a senate or
parliament, but we never actually SEE this, so it's just an assumption.
> The comics (US #14) were fairly explicit that any Autobot could leave
> if he so desired, and Prime said he'd step down if the Autobots so
> desired. Sounds.... kinda democratic, at least.
Like I said, the Autobot dictators have been largely benevolent.
Arguably, that's actually the BEST form of government, since politics
and bureacracy are kept at a minimum, and the wise leader can quickly
enforce policies for the good of all. But even the allowances you
mentioned are a far cry from representative democracy.
> On the other hand, US
> #1 also showed him addressing some leader-type dude as "sire". Make
> of that what you will....
Also note the reign of King Grimlock.
- Jackpot (Democracy is about the structure, not so much the
leaders themselves.)
Galenraff
over the past few weeks as I've outlined to those I know why I oppose
the war, but they ask me why I then turn around to adore the war-based
mythos of Transformers.
A large part of it for me is that line between fantasy and reality.
(Sometimes I do have to talk myself into seeing it, too! :) As much
as we enjoy escaping the real world into the world of TFs, there is
still the distinction that it is not real. When Dinobot died, he was
a character. The people that die in wars are real flesh and blood
human beings.
Then there's the whole "justified war" idea. That if the people in
Iraq are suffering more without intervention, that it's all worth it.
I've seen the argument about how Optimus Prime/Primal knows this and
knows the cost of not fighting is higher than the cost of fighting.
To that point, I say that the Autobots are aggressed upon. They don't
strike first. The Decepticons always made some move, some attack, and
the Autobots responded.
Even when threatened, they didn't just fire all weapons. In "Optimal
Situation", Megatron had tried to destroy the universe, threatened to
keep trying, Primal had him dead in his sights, Rattrap egging him on,
and he *still* was "trying not to resort to that."
In the Movie, the Autobots don't wage war on the Quintessons on behalf
of the Sharkticons...they just point the Sharkticons in the right
direction and let them free themselves. The Sub-Atlanticans were
similarly under a form of Decepticon tyranny, but the Autobots just
wanted to stop the aggression. In Season 3 of G1, the Autobots
could've finished off the 'cons anytime they wanted to, but didn't.
Because fighting should be the LAST recourse.
Not just when you get impatient, or when you doubt anything else will
work, or when the other side might be tricking you, or when you're
getting criticized. War should come last. When absolutely everything
else doesn't work, or you're being attacked and it's the only
remaining way to defend yourself. It's true for school bullies, it's
true for Transformers, and it should be true for world politics.
Something else we may take from the "War Without End" is that once the
fighting starts, there may always be a side that wishes to continue -
as Megatron pointed out in "Beast Wars, Part 1". A war is not a
self-contained bubble. When it's over, people don't live happily ever
after in a golden age. All a rebirth will bring about is a new age,
where new conflicts and ideas will live and breathe. I'm sure even
Technorganic Cybertron has it's flaws and conflicts...without a doubt
many of them don't like the reformatting any more than many transfans.
Now I know that probably we see the TF story as something deeper and
more meaningful, and draw more thought-out lessons (one way or the
other) out of it than the general public. It's possible that a casual
kid who watches may take the wrong message and think that fighting is
okay to solve any problems. So I guess the question is: do I identify
with the war aspect of TFs the way I do because of the way I am
predisposed to be, or did TFs help me identify with war in a certain
way by the messages it carries?
-----------Galenraff-------------
There are eight million stories in the naked city.
Yep, Metroplex sure could use some undies.
Botch the Crab
thoughts!
I think it's safe to summarize that the majority of Transfans easily
draw a distinction between fantasy warfare and real-world conflict.
The main point of the distinction is the human life factor. Actual
death, most agree, is not entertaining.
Though it seems equally apparent that the fanbase is subtlely aware of
the thin line between enjoying fantasy violence and real violence. I
think it still raises the question: What are the attractive elements
of warfare?
If human life was not so frail, would we more easily find actual
warfare enthralling (if not entertaining)? Boxing, for example, is
brutal, violent and painful, but because the threat of death is so
minor, many feel comfortable with enjoying it. And, of course,
historically people have enjoyed gladiatorial combat with "actual"
death.
And, now that I think about it, wouldn't you say that there was
probably a significant portion of America who is/was glued to CNN
during real-world conflict, not out of humanitarian concern, but
because they find it subtly... entertaining?
At the end of this discussion, Botch will clue you in on his own
feelings on the matter. I feel that to reveal them now would pollute
the debate.
Jackpot
>
> Though it seems equally apparent that the fanbase is subtlely aware of
> the thin line between enjoying fantasy violence and real violence. I
> think it still raises the question: What are the attractive elements
> of warfare?
<snip>
> And, now that I think about it, wouldn't you say that there was
> probably a significant portion of America who is/was glued to CNN
> during real-world conflict, not out of humanitarian concern, but
> because they find it subtly... entertaining?
What frightens us also entertains us. It's hard-wired into us to be
scared of death; some people are more cavalier or at-peace-with-the-
universe than others about the prospect, but the primal instinct
remains. So when death is sanitized, either by being fictional or by
being justified in our eyes, our deep-down, animal core gets a little
thrill out of what would otherwise be terrifying or mournful.
Or so it seems to me, anyhow.
- Jackpot
Desperado00
>of warfare?
An excellent question. I've always found tactics and strategies to be very
interesting. One of my greatest all-time heroes is George Patton. Sure, he
seemed a bit crazy, but that only adds to the interest level.
On a more basic level, warfare has a very human element to it. Not just
heroism, but the reasons why people go to war in the first place. If it were
possible to interview people from any war throughout time, and ask them why
they felt the need to fight, the overwhelming majority would say to protect
their homes and families. I cannot imagine a more noble idea.
Desperado00
>And, now that I think about it, wouldn't you say that there was
>probably a significant portion of America who is/was glued to CNN
>during real-world conflict, not out of humanitarian concern, but
>because they find it subtly... entertaining?
Perhaps, though I'd not want to be around someone like that. I think the real
reason that most people were/are glued to CNN during this conflict is fear. I
won't get into whether or not this conflict was good or necessary, but
certainly most people realize that with Hussein out of power now, the Middle
East is right on the edge of collapsing into pure and absolute chaos, as
demonstrated by all of the groups within Iraq now wanting a chunk of the power
in the new government. Handled correctly, we could possibly sculpt a new
government that could create a truly stable presence in the region. More than
likely, though, when all the U.S. and coalition troops (and inevitably U.N.
people) pull out of there, the ancestral hatreds within the different groups in
Iraq will produce a huge power struggle, potentially pushing the region into a
seemingly endless war. This is a truly scary thought, given that Armageddon is
prophecized to start between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. I'm not saying
that this will happen, it's just something to consider.
Gabi T.M. D'Galvatron
> When the American-led military action in Iraq began, one or two fans
> posted to this board inquiring as to the general sentiment of the
> group regarding the war. Almost immediately, a number of responses
> came in declaring the question off-topic, which I believe is entirely
> correct.
It's 90% correct .
The 100% correctness is where there is a suggestion to preform such
discussions in another specific forum -- where you can have the same
discussion , with (hopefully) the same pepole that post to your fave
group -- in this case ATT .
This is the way it was handled on one ezboard that I read , and I
think it's the best way .
> However, the initial truncated discussion raised several interesting
> questions in my mind, questions which I believe *are* on-topic for
> this group:
>
> How does being an ardent fan of a warfare-based toy line influence
> your opinion about real-world military conflict?
For me , it's the other way arround , as I've found that my
experiences in the real world have influanced my TF fandom to a degree
.
For example while I too have TF's rampageing in my head , either
dueling with words or ammo -- certin RL facts and experiences lead me
to be unable to choose strictly one side of the TF conflict and
support the total extermination of the other .
This has become more complicated as I grew up and begun favoreing the
Decepticons over Autobots , wich in the end lead to three things :
1) My choice of creating a TF universe where that exists in the G1
universe , but me / my caracter belong to a Con faction that is
unrelated to the G1 Con's .
2) Because I do not see either side (perticulary the G1 Cons) as being
"right" , I've found that TF on-line role playing was not for me .
3) Due to my older POV's over the years , I have developped a subtle
anger towards bouth G1 factions , as I saw myself accusing bouth
factions of incredble incompetence , and I thought (and still think)
that guys with this kind of ability to win wars woud be booted out of
most RL earth military organisations .
And to top that , I also thought / think that by any kind of human
psychologycal terms , these two factions woud have been diclared
'insain' one or two million years into their little war .
Now it's needless to say that Tf's are not in fact human , yet it is
so easy to mistake them for humans by their raction to their
surroundings .
>In an age where many
> are questioning the role of violence in entertainment (including
> children's toys), do you feel that fans of The Transformers may be
> less likely to balk at things military in nature?
Not as such , no .
Violence in entertainment has little to do with the inherent violence
that is part of our natures as human beings .
Violence is part of the warmonger and the pacifist alike .
It's just a game of chaneling it , avoiding it , useing it's energy
for something else , or letting it loose in a distructive way .
TF's fall into the category of "chaneling it" -- but in most cases
it's a harmless expression of indulgance , and causes little harm to
anyone .
I can't speak of anyone else , but in my experience the amount of my
_imaginary_ TF violence or TF's VS "Someone Else" has been ... at
least 30% of my enjoyment of TF's , with another 35% made up by my
enjoyment of the caracters and caracter interactions . The last place
-- the remaining 35% is reserved for the actual transformetion gimmic
, either in toys or animation .
So yeah , the violence seems to be there big time in a slightly
frightening disguise of a recreational fancy .
But so is the hunting instinct ... , wich has been replaced by the
shopping experience ... , at least for most of us .
> Are
> there any Transfans that are also warfare enthusiasts? Are there any
> Transfans that are staunchly anti-war? If there are any anti-war
> Tranfans, would anyone see this as a mild hypocrisy?
Not at all , for the need for violence is in us all .
One cannot enjoy the TF saga and at the same time abhorre the violence
in it .
It's a part of the "fun" .
But I have seen TF fan-caracters who have been allied to bouth
factions , or have worked with bouth factions from time to time , and
I always thouht that that was a subconscious reaction that wished for
all the caracters in the TF saga to "just get along" , in essence a
display of anti-war sentiments .
> Lastly, many fans consider themselves sympathetic either to the
> Autobots or Decepticons. Does this in any way influence your opinion
> about real-world conflict? Perhaps reflecting a more idealistic or
> pragmatic viewpoint?
Not for me .
TF's are a hobby , a recriational activity (even if they do show up
all over the place -- perticulary when they're not invited :-) ;
> Granted, the Transformers are an idealistic, fantastical and dramatic
> representation of military conflict, but the fundamentals are
> inherently similar. The Transformers wouldn't be the same if they ever
> found a lasting peace; we must admit that we would no longer find them
> as interesting without the war. But how does this desire for "War
> Without End" compare to our sentiments about actual war?
I think that our wishes , reactions and visions in this case may be
somewhat child like .
On one hand you were right , TF's are made interesting by the war that
they are in .
And yet there is a certin comfort to be drawn from the near
immartality of our TF caracters , as we as fans see dayly RL wars ,
death and other unplesantness .
So TF's , despite their violence , seem to be an anchor bouth to our
childhoods , and a corridor to a place within us where there is
violence , yet no one dies "really" .
-Gabi.
Thomas Hamann
the web:
<snip>
Note: It is not my intention to start a flamewar.
<snip>
> More than
>likely, though, when all the U.S. and coalition troops (and inevitably U.N.
>people) pull out of there, the ancestral hatreds within the different groups in
>Iraq will produce a huge power struggle, potentially pushing the region into a
>seemingly endless war.
Not to scare you, but that already began. A religious leader was
killed when he tried to save someone with the same religion as his.
And then there are the groups that boycot the US-led attempt at
creating a government. And those that are opposed to other groups
because those groups support/do not support the US. And the
individuals who are pissed because US bombs destroyed their
homes/family/city/lifes/whatever.
> This is a truly scary thought, given that Armageddon is
>prophecized to start between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. I'm not saying
>that this will happen, it's just something to consider.
The scarier thought is that you'll see that the people there (and not
only there) will blame the USA for it. All of the USA. Including the
people who were opposed to the war and those that 'walked with the
flow'. And they'll blame the rest of the Western countries too, but
first and foremost the USA.
I'm very afraid that the *current* US government has laid the basis
for 9/11 Mk.2 (in, let's say, 20 years time) by attacking Iraq *AND*
at the same time ignoring the rest of the world and the UN.
And before someone accuses me of anti-americanism, I'd like to point
out that I listen to US music, am a fan of various US comic series,
and think it's a nice country and that is has a lot of nice people
living in it (but there are exceptions, but that's also the case for
any other country).
I just happen to thoroughly dislike the *current* US government,
mainly because they seem to think that they can decide what is best
for the world. Which they can't, for the simple reason that the rest
of the world didn't choose this particular US government as their
representation for changing the whole world.
That's why organisations like the UN exist. And the UN might not work
like it ideally should work, but at least they manage to do a bit of
the work they ideally should do.
I think that's the best way I can word my problem with current US
international politics without stepping on anyone's toes.
Thomas Hamann
--
Personal Website: http://evilskylark.tripod.com/
RAAM Posting Policies: http://evilskylark.tripod.com/faqs.htm
"...you ain't no different than Ben Laden..." - The emminent Dr. J ranting about me on alt.toys.transformers.
Neale Davidson
> like it ideally should work, but at least they manage to do a bit of
> the work they ideally should do.
I'm going to have to hit you with something.. how can the UN be
'for the people of the world' when over 80 percent of its members
are appointed by non-elected government 'leaders'?
How then, is it a democratic instution that promotes freedom
and justice in the world when most of it's membership are actively
oppressing it's peoples?
Neale Davidson
Thomas Hamann
wires of the web:
>> That's why organisations like the UN exist. And the UN might not work
>> like it ideally should work, but at least they manage to do a bit of
>> the work they ideally should do.
>
>I'm going to have to hit you with something.. how can the UN be
>'for the people of the world' when over 80 percent of its members
>are appointed by non-elected government 'leaders'?
>
O_o
I dunno where you get your facts, Neale, but I'm quite sure that many
less than 80% of the countries of the world that *are* UN members have
'non-elected' leaders.
Name your source. As an URL that works, please.
>How then, is it a democratic instution that promotes freedom
>and justice in the world when most of it's membership are actively
>oppressing it's peoples?
>
Again, state your source for this 'fact'.
Here's the website of the UN:
There's a member list on there somewhere. Find it. Have a look at it.
Then please tell me which countries have 'non-elected' leaders.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that even though some countries do
have 'non-elected' leaders, that does not mean that they are all
authoritairian bastards.
Jim Sorenson
> Behold! On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:35:11 +0000 (UTC), Jackpot
> <i_do_not_read_an...@hotmail.com> did speak:
> >Botch the Crab wrote:
> >For instance, 'Bot supporters tend to believe that the 'Bots are
> >champions of democracy, despite the fact that we've always seen them
> >being led by lone dictators (benevolent though they may be). (Well,
>
> Not to disagree with the heart of your argument, but I dunno if that's
> an entirely fair assessment. Most times we've met him, Optimus Prime is
> just leading a tiny band of followers -- more like a tribe than a
> full-scale society. And you have to consider their unusual situation --
> they're facing an enemy that's pretty well set on their destruction, maybe
> regardless of what actions they do or don't take. They're a military
> organization almost by default, and simple survival demands an autocratic
> command structure. Some takes on the story also have the Autobots as the
> designated military of their society, and again, Prime would be their top
> general, not a king or whatnot.
>
> The comics (US #14) were fairly explicit that any Autobot could leave if
> he so desired, and Prime said he'd step down if the Autobots so desired.
> Sounds.... kinda democratic, at least. On the other hand, US #1 also
> showed him addressing some leader-type dude as "sire". Make of that what
> you will....
Well, counting the UK comic continuity, there was definitely some sort
of leadership besides Prime. The council of elders referenced many
times, notably in the Target: 2006 storyline seemed to be civilian
leaders. They seemed to be above the military hierarchy. Of course,
we don't know how they came to power (Elections? Seniority? Wealth?)
so it doesn't help us decide if the Autobots were democratic. But
they were not a military dictatorship despite millions of years of
costly war.
JimS
Jackpot
like to contrast a couple of your statements:
Thomas Hamann wrote:
>>>
>>> I just happen to thoroughly dislike the *current* US government,
>>> mainly because they seem to think that they can decide what is best
>>> for the world. Which they can't, for the simple reason that the rest
>>> of the world didn't choose this particular US government as their
>>> representation for changing the whole world.
You criticize the imposition of US will on foreign countries simply
because those countries never "elected" the US into any position of
power over themselves. I won't argue with this idea; I don't
necessarily agree with it entirely, but the principle is sound.
However...
> Furthermore, I'd like to point out that even though some countries do
> have 'non-elected' leaders, that does not mean that they are all
> authoritairian bastards.
Whether they're "authoritarian bastards" has nothing to do with the
existence of popular representation, which is what you were on about to
begin with. Your argument against US foreign policy, as stated, rested
only on the principle that any power not approved by election is
inherently illegitimate. But when you held the UN up as a model of
global democracy, and Neale pointed out its undemocratic elements, your
argument suddenly shifted to one of *quality* - that the unelected
participants are excusable if they're not "bastards."
You can't have it both ways. Either all unelected leadership is
invalid, or the validity of unelected leadership is determined on a
case-by-case basis on the merits of the benevolency of said leadership.
Since your last statement affirmed the latter position, your critique of
US foreign policy fails unless you can establish that America's
unelected influence in the world is "authoritatively bastardly" - that
the changes we make are objectively WRONG for the world. Now, I don't
WANT you to start trying to establish this. Arguing over the possible
long-term benefits and drawbacks of current US actions around the globe
is an enormous, ultimately pointless debate to have here. There are
many other places on the Net where it would be very welcome and
appropriate, and I invite you to go there.
As it is, I thought I should just point out that contradiction in your
argument, which could've led to more useless debate if people didn't see
it.
Thomas Hamann
of the web:
>Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread so far. Some great
>thoughts!
>
>I think it's safe to summarize that the majority of Transfans easily
>draw a distinction between fantasy warfare and real-world conflict.
With some exceptions, yes.
In another fandom, we had two rather perturbing experiences of people
who had some trouble with this. Both wanted to have sex with a cartoon
character from a cartoon for young children. One of them also wanted
to talk to young children, while sending porn with his messages...
Should anyone wonder why both were banned?
>The main point of the distinction is the human life factor. Actual
>death, most agree, is not entertaining.
>
Unless you are a sadist.
And some people seem not to be bothered if the 'enemy' (even if it's
just a civilian who has nothing whatsoever to do with the conflict)
dies in a horrible way on TV, but will scream for mommy if one of
their people slips from the stairs in a foreign country and breaks his
neck on TV. Those people, I think, have really skewed ethical values.
>Though it seems equally apparent that the fanbase is subtlely aware of
>the thin line between enjoying fantasy violence and real violence. I
>think it still raises the question: What are the attractive elements
>of warfare?
>
The animal within wants to see blood. Same reason some people get a
kick from shooting a bear pointblank in the head. Same reason some
people murder other people for no reason.
>If human life was not so frail, would we more easily find actual
>warfare enthralling (if not entertaining)? Boxing, for example, is
>brutal, violent and painful, but because the threat of death is so
>minor, many feel comfortable with enjoying it. And, of course,
>historically people have enjoyed gladiatorial combat with "actual"
>death.
>
Have you ever watched "Robot Wars"? Radio-controlled robots slicing,
dicing, and disabling other radio-controlled robots in a trap-filled
arena with bullet proof safety glass lining the sides. Cheering public
when their favourite rips open the enemy 'bot. Enthusiastic
commentators that scream "Killerbot bashes in on Slagthemall! Look at
that, he rips him open! OOOH_YEAH!!!!!!".
Modern times gladiatorial combat at its finest. And a lot of fun to
watch.
Although I still wait for a robot called "Roller", "Brunt", or
"Scamper"... :)
>And, now that I think about it, wouldn't you say that there was
>probably a significant portion of America who is/was glued to CNN
>during real-world conflict, not out of humanitarian concern, but
>because they find it subtly... entertaining?
>
Yes. Just like all the people who cheered when they saw the downed
Apache. Or when the US accidentally shot down a British plane. Or when
France threatened with a veto. Or when someone blew himself up. Or
when US soldiers accidentally shot a couple of civilians. Or when
someone (US or Iraq themselves) hit that one market.
We all sometimes wish we could bash in <insert name>'s head...
<snip>
Thomas Hamann
>However, the initial truncated discussion raised several interesting
>questions in my mind, questions which I believe *are* on-topic for
>this group:
>
>How does being an ardent fan of a warfare-based toy line influence
>your opinion about real-world military conflict?
Well, when I was a (naive) kid, I liked and bought Transformers
because they were robots and cool machinery at the same time.
IIRC, I bought certain characters only because I liked their character
(eg. Prowl, who I bought just because of his TFU entry).
When I was a kid I bought a lot of Autobots, and less Decepticons.
When I was a teenager, I bought more Predacons, but mostly because
they either had cool characters, cool toys, or because they were
insects.
>In an age where many
>are questioning the role of violence in entertainment (including
>children's toys), do you feel that fans of The Transformers may be
>less likely to balk at things military in nature?
>
It depends on how you define 'military'. I like certain aspects of the
technology in certain military vehicles (eg. Stealth technology).
Furthermore, many technologies are first developped with a military
use in mind, and only after that they'll also be used for civilian
uses (eg. radar).
However, other technologies are just developped to kill as many people
as possible (fragmentation bombs, WMD, mines, napalm bombs,
projectiles with an uranium core, etc.). I strongly oppose those.
IMHO, an army should only be used for defensive or peace-keeping
purposes, and should use non-lethal weapons (eg. sleeping gas, EMD
(electro-magnetic disruption) weapons, etc.).
>Does anyone percieve a corollary between Transfandom and warfare
>enthusiasts? (By warfare enthusiast, I generally mean in a historical
>context, such as WWII buffs, not any current or recent conflict.) Are
>there any Transfans that are also warfare enthusiasts?
If you count building model kits of military vehicles and planes, yes.
If you don't count those, possibly.
> Are there any
>Transfans that are staunchly anti-war?
Probably.
> If there are any anti-war
>Tranfans, would anyone see this as a mild hypocrisy?
>
If they happen to be Decepoticon-fans, probably, yes. If they are
Autobot or 'non-faction' fans, possibly yes, depending on who they are
fans of (eg. a First Aid fan wouldn't be seen as a hypocrite, but a
Mirage-fan maybe.).
>Lastly, many fans consider themselves sympathetic either to the
>Autobots or Decepticons. Does this in any way influence your opinion
>about real-world conflict? Perhaps reflecting a more idealistic or
>pragmatic viewpoint?
>
I rather think it's the other way around: a person that is anti-war
will be less likely to choose the Decepticons as his favourite
faction, and someone who is pro-war will probably despise Optimus
Prime for not nuking the Decepticons off the planet.
>Granted, the Transformers are an idealistic, fantastical and dramatic
>representation of military conflict, but the fundamentals are
>inherently similar. The Transformers wouldn't be the same if they ever
>found a lasting peace; we must admit that we would no longer find them
>as interesting without the war.
The Dutch G1 Transformers comic ended with issue #75 (or the Dutch
equivalent thereof). It missed the last page of the US issue. Instead
the last page of the US comic, it had a goodbye wishing the
Transformers well.
The last page was a shot of Cybertron, damaged, but at peace. The war
was over. IMHO, that version of the story was much more powerful than
the US version. It had the perfect ending.
I didn't stop buying Transformers after that. And my Micromasters had
many battles against an invisible enemy together after that.
> But how does this desire for "War
>Without End" compare to our sentiments about actual war?
>
The animal within wants to see blood. As long as the majority of
humans can't control it, war will not end.
War, and any conflict by the way, will only stop if we learn to stop
retaliating instead of bashing each others brain in.
Talking might only wield a compromise, and not all of our wishes might
end up in it, but it's better than war. A compromise is better than
nothing, better than death.
Controlling the animal within is difficult, I think. However, with
practice, it gets easier. And sometimes, but not often, listening to
the animal within can safe you.
I'll just keep it at that. I could continue philosophically rambling
for a while about the subject, but I don't think people would want to
read that.
Thomas Hamann (war=death, for those who were wondering)
Thomas Hamann
through the wires of the web:
>3) Due to my older POV's over the years , I have developped a subtle
>anger towards bouth G1 factions , as I saw myself accusing bouth
>factions of incredble incompetence , and I thought (and still think)
>that guys with this kind of ability to win wars woud be booted out of
>most RL earth military organisations .
They are with too few. It's one group of rebels fighting the other,
both neither has the military might to destroy enough of the other to
win.
>And to top that , I also thought / think that by any kind of human
>psychologycal terms , these two factions woud have been diclared
>'insain' one or two million years into their little war .
>
Like two clans killing eachother for hundreds of years.
>Now it's needless to say that Tf's are not in fact human , yet it is
>so easy to mistake them for humans by their raction to their
>surroundings .
>
But they were thought up by humans. They can't exist without humans.
Ergo, Transformers and their behaviour are a mirror image of the
humans who imagined them.
Let's have a look at fan-characters. A fan-character will always have
at least one feature or character-trait that the person who imagined
him/her/it also has. I know mine have, and I'm sure other poeple's
have it too.
For example, I am currently writing a fanfic. It contains two
characters who I chose specifically for what was written in their
techspec, as I knew they would be easy to write for me, as their
behaviour reflects part of my behaviour. Based on their techspecs, I
added some stuff and made them a mix of official and fan-characters.
One of them gets angry quite fast, but only in certain conditions;
that reflects my anger, which only comes up when I feel slighted, or
when I am tired. The other is serious, closed, and reserved. He could
be seen as a representation of my serious and very methodical side.
Conclusion: these fan-characters reflect part of their creator.
I would really like to see other fanfic writers jump in on this point.
<snip>
>
>I can't speak of anyone else , but in my experience the amount of my
>_imaginary_ TF violence or TF's VS "Someone Else" has been ... at
>least 30% of my enjoyment of TF's , with another 35% made up by my
>enjoyment of the caracters and caracter interactions . The last place
>-- the remaining 35% is reserved for the actual transformetion gimmic
>, either in toys or animation .
>
I'll second this statement.
>So yeah , the violence seems to be there big time in a slightly
>frightening disguise of a recreational fancy .
Yes.
>But so is the hunting instinct ... , wich has been replaced by the
>shopping experience ... , at least for most of us .
>
LOL! So true.
<snip>
>> Lastly, many fans consider themselves sympathetic either to the
>> Autobots or Decepticons. Does this in any way influence your opinion
>> about real-world conflict? Perhaps reflecting a more idealistic or
>> pragmatic viewpoint?
>
>Not for me .
>TF's are a hobby , a recriational activity (even if they do show up
>all over the place -- perticulary when they're not invited :-) ;
>
I'd say that it would be dangerous to use TFs as a base for your real
world experiences. Something about loosing the grip on what's real and
what's not.
<snip>
Thomas Hamann
thetransformerscollector
Armageddon is
saying
> that this will happen, it's just something to consider.
I didnt wanna say anything on this cuz I was trying to leave the group but
this is worth saying. There are tons of bible prophecies regarding the "end
times" that are coming true everyday. I recently attended a bible prophecy
class at church and its amazing how many things are happening exactly like
the bible said it would.
just something to let ya all know about. BTW even if ya dont read the bible
watch the Left behind movies to get a clear picture of what will happen and
keep your eyes open when it does.
--
thetransformerscollector
aka the rat aka phatrat aka ratdogg aka richdogg aka DJ serial killa aka
rat_born_in_1982
Thomas Hamann
through the wires of the web:
>like to contrast a couple of your statements:
>
>Thomas Hamann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just happen to thoroughly dislike the *current* US government,
>>>> mainly because they seem to think that they can decide what is best
>>>> for the world. Which they can't, for the simple reason that the rest
>>>> of the world didn't choose this particular US government as their
>>>> representation for changing the whole world.
>
>You criticize the imposition of US will on foreign countries simply
>because those countries never "elected" the US into any position of
>power over themselves. I won't argue with this idea; I don't
>necessarily agree with it entirely, but the principle is sound.
>
>However...
>
>> Furthermore, I'd like to point out that even though some countries do
>> have 'non-elected' leaders, that does not mean that they are all
>> authoritairian bastards.
>
>Whether they're "authoritarian bastards" has nothing to do with the
>existence of popular representation, which is what you were on about to
>begin with. Your argument against US foreign policy, as stated, rested
>only on the principle that any power not approved by election is
>inherently illegitimate. But when you held the UN up as a model of
>global democracy, and Neale pointed out its undemocratic elements, your
>argument suddenly shifted to one of *quality* - that the unelected
>participants are excusable if they're not "bastards."
>
democracy and monarchy. Some countries have a government headed by a
king, with a chosen advisory parliament that is an acurate
representation of the country's inhabitants. Where do these fall?
If I read Neale's argument correctly, these would still fall under
'unelected leadership'.
And there's also the case of Turkmenistan, which is a democratic
country, except that its leader behaves like a tyrant.
>You can't have it both ways. Either all unelected leadership is
>invalid, or the validity of unelected leadership is determined on a
>case-by-case basis on the merits of the benevolency of said leadership.
>
>Since your last statement affirmed the latter position, your critique of
>US foreign policy fails unless you can establish that America's
>unelected influence in the world is "authoritatively bastardly" - that
>the changes we make are objectively WRONG for the world.
I can't proof this until in a few years.
If the situation in Iraq suddenly detoiriates and a civil war breaks
out, or if the Iraqi people decide that the USA is acting too
oppressive and a rebellion against the US forces occur, or if the US
tries to force the creation of a pro-US government in Iraq and there
is a revolt, in short: if the situation goes horrribly wrong, then the
war could be seen as 'wrong'.
If something like that doesn't happen, it could still be seen as
'wrong' if the hate against the USA raises to enormous proportions
(IIRC, there was a poll some time back that showed that the amount of
Arabs that hated the USA had gone up since 9/11, but the poll also
explicitly said that they hated the Middle East politics).
If Iraq becomes an exemplary democracy, the war could still be seen as
'wrong' by certain people.
I don't think that the fall of Saddam Hussein is seen as 'wrong' by a
large part of the world, right now. However, the method used to reach
this, is (seen as 'wrong').
<snip>
>As it is, I thought I should just point out that contradiction in your
>argument, which could've led to more useless debate if people didn't see
>it.
Thanks.
What I actually meant, and what I should have worded a bit better, is
that if everything had gone via the UN, everybody (who is a member of
the UN and who was in the security council at that time) would have
had the chance to say something. But I fear that the main problem was
not that the UN was divided on the matter, but that the US government
didn't want to accept compromises (it is quite ironic and tragic that
one of the countries that gave birth to the UN more than 50 years ago
should damage it in such a way today...).
The main thing I objected to in Neale's post is the unrealistically
high percentage of countries with unelected leaders that were also
members of the UN he gave.
Steve-o Stonebraker
> I didnt wanna say anything on this cuz I was trying to leave the group but
> this is worth saying. There are tons of bible prophecies regarding the "end
> times" that are coming true everyday. I recently attended a bible prophecy
> class at church and its amazing how many things are happening exactly like
> the bible said it would.
There are prophecies in every faith, as well as prophecies from largely
non-denominational sources, which are coming true every day. This is
because when you write many, many prophecies with incredibly vague
wording, people will always find a way to interpret current events as
matching up to them.
--Steve-o
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Stonebraker | Transformers FAQ Keeper | Astrophysicist
sst...@yahoo.com | www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~sstoneb | AOL IM: srstoneb
Jesterinazz
>'for the people of the world' when over 80 percent of its members
>are appointed by non-elected government 'leaders'?
>How then, is it a democratic instution that promotes freedom
>and justice in the world when most of it's membership are actively
>oppressing it's peoples?
>
Its not the best..but its the best we've got. For the record, I think we
should get out of the U.N. And Ive felt this way for 20 years, not just due to
recent events. The U.N. is becoming nothing more than an attempt to "balance
the power" in the face of Americas military superiority.
"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life" -- Dean Wormer, Animal
House
Jackpot
>
> Jackpot wrote:
>>
>> Your argument against US foreign policy, as stated, rested
>> only on the principle that any power not approved by election is
>> inherently illegitimate. But when you held the UN up as a model of
>> global democracy, and Neale pointed out its undemocratic elements,
>> your argument suddenly shifted to one of *quality* - that the
>> unelected participants are excusable if they're not "bastards."
>
> I was actually thinking of countries that used a combination of
> democracy and monarchy. Some countries have a government headed by a
> king, with a chosen advisory parliament that is an acurate
> representation of the country's inhabitants. Where do these fall?
Like so many things in life and politics, it's a grey area. Just as the
case against the imposition of US will in foreign countries can't be
boiled down to simply "it's wrong because the US wasn't elected to do
that."
There are other reasons why one might oppose US action abroad, but those
pertain more to a case-by-case analysis. Which is exactly what this NG
doesn't need.
>> Since your last statement affirmed the latter position, your critique
>> of US foreign policy fails unless you can establish that America's
>> unelected influence in the world is "authoritatively bastardly" -
>> that the changes we make are objectively WRONG for the world.
>
> I can't proof this until in a few years.
<snip big list of "if"s and arguments regarding the UN>
I see you deleted something I wrote there. Here it is again:
>> Now, I don't
>> WANT you to start trying to establish this. Arguing over the
>> possible long-term benefits and drawbacks of current US actions
>> around the globe is an enormous, ultimately pointless debate to have
>> here. There are many other places on the Net where it would be very
>> welcome and appropriate, and I invite you to go there.
- Jackpot
Desperado00
>watch the Left behind movies to get a clear picture of what will happen and
>keep your eyes open when it does.
Eh, not a fan of Kurt Cameron. I'd rather read the books, if the blasted
things weren't so slaggin' expensive.
Desperado00
>non-denominational sources, which are coming true every day. This is
>because when you write many, many prophecies with incredibly vague
>wording, people will always find a way to interpret current events as
>matching up to them.
Perfect example is Nostradamus. Talk about vague wording. Yikes.
Speaking of end times prophecies, did anyone hear that the Midgard Serpent and
Fenris were released from their prisons the other day? I also heard Balder was
in the intensive care unit at some hospital. :)
Mark Brown
news:20030424181654...@mb-m13.aol.com...
*SNIP*
> I also heard Balder was
> in the intensive care unit at some hospital. :)
"Again" or "still?" ;)
Mark
"Poor guy's worse than Waspinator."
Desperado00
>> in the intensive care unit at some hospital. :)
>
>"Again" or "still?" ;)
>
>Mark
>"Poor guy's worse than Waspinator."
Balder has a headache over his whole body.
Enfilade
Warfare enthusiasts: well, I've got a masters' degree in Military and
Strategic Studies from Royal Military College, which is the Canadian
equivalent of West Point.
Now, as for being anti-war in general, no, I'm not. But I'm against
certain wars in particular, and the recent conflict in Iraq was one of
them. I believe it was poorly thought out, fought for the wrong
reasons, and will eventually cause a decrease in the area's stability,
not to mention global stability, making life more unpleasant for the
citizens and the international community alike.
So being a strategist and having an interest in a military based toy
line doesn't automatically make me pro-war.
> Lastly, many fans consider themselves sympathetic either to the
> Autobots or Decepticons. Does this in any way influence your opinion
> about real-world conflict? Perhaps reflecting a more idealistic or
> pragmatic viewpoint?
I think my email address makes a preference obvious....
As a strategist, I find myself identifying more overall with
Decepticon characters like Onslaught and Megatron. Despite the 80's
goofiness of some of Megatron's plans, he was the one coming up with
plans, while Prime's role was to find out the plans and stop them.
But again, I believe every situation has to be considered
individually, and I don't believe that any side--TF or RL--is "all
good" or conversely, "all evil."
My involvement in TF fandom is mostly based on fantasy. Sure, on one
MUSH I play a Decepticon general and I find myself using some of the
stuff I learned in strategy classes. But on another MUSH, my
character is a space pirate and thief, which is pretty darn far from
my RL. TF allows me to indulge everything that's cool about military
hardware and tactical maneuvers without anyone RL getting harmed by
it.
Most of all, the TF "war without end" reminds me of places like Israel
& Palestine, or Pakistan & India, or the Hutus & the Tutsis. After 4
million years Cybertron is a burned out shell. I sincerely hope
humans do better than Transformers at resolving their differences.
--Enfilade/Stormy
Gabi T.M. D'Galvatron
> The Dutch G1 Transformers comic ended with issue #75 (or the Dutch
> equivalent thereof). It missed the last page of the US issue. Instead
> the last page of the US comic, it had a goodbye wishing the
> Transformers well.
> The last page was a shot of Cybertron, damaged, but at peace. The war
> was over. IMHO, that version of the story was much more powerful than
> the US version. It had the perfect ending.
I think that it had the _ideal_ ending , while not neccesserally the
perfect one .
BTW , do you know if this page is up somewhere on the web ?
I'd very much like to see it , along with the page that leads up to it
.
I have the last issue of the G1 comic , but this sounds like a
fantastic ending to the comic .
Even if it is "ideal" ... . :-)
> I didn't stop buying Transformers after that. And my Micromasters had
> many battles against an invisible enemy together after that.
Does the "invisible enemy" bit mean that you had no micromasters from
the opposite faction , or was this a made up story ?
Whatever the reason , I'm sure it lead to many heroic deaths of the
microbastards , errr , I mean masters .
> Talking might only wield a compromise, and not all of our wishes might
> end up in it, but it's better than war. A compromise is better than
> nothing, better than death.
Unfrtunetly many pepole on this planet don't see it that way .
And come to think of it , the TF's didn't see it that way either .
Or does one contemplate the idea that Optimus woud have sat back and
let Megs go off and counquer to his energon pump's content ?
-Gabi.
Ethan Hammond
>
> > Talking might only wield a compromise, and not all of our wishes might
> > end up in it, but it's better than war. A compromise is better than
> > nothing, better than death.
>
> Unfrtunetly many pepole on this planet don't see it that way .
> And come to think of it , the TF's didn't see it that way either .
And a lot of times so called compromises end up leading to war.
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Aaron F. Bourque
>SP...@BLOCK.compost (Thomas Hamann) :
>
>> The Dutch G1 Transformers comic ended with issue #75 (or
>> the Dutch equivalent thereof). It missed the last page of the
>> US issue. Instead the last page of the US comic, it had a
>> goodbye wishing the Transformers well.
>>
>> The last page was a shot of Cybertron, damaged, but at
>> peace. The war was over. IMHO, that version of the story was
>> much more powerful than the US version. It had the perfect
>> ending.
>
>I think that it had the _ideal_ ending , while not neccesserally
>the perfect one .
Yeah, the perfect ending would be me and Arcee, ridin' off into the sunset
together . . .
What?
You know you're all thinkin' the same thing! Don't give me that!
Aaron "The Mad Whitaker" Bourque
--
Women supposedly mature at a faster rate than men
If that is true, how come they live so much longer then . . ?
Nothing says maturity like transforming robot toys for ten-year-olds
http://members.aol.com/aaronbourque/cryotekwarning.jpg
Gabi T.M. D'Galvatron
> >> The last page was a shot of Cybertron, damaged, but at
> >> peace. The war was over. IMHO, that version of the story was
> >> much more powerful than the US version. It had the perfect
> >> ending.
> >
> >I think that it had the _ideal_ ending , while not neccesserally
> >the perfect one .
>
> Yeah, the perfect ending would be me and Arcee, ridin' off into the sunset
> together . . .
>
> What?
>
> You know you're all thinkin' the same thing! Don't give me that!
Nah ... , I can't see beyond anything besidse me humping a
tree-bot-femme-person-thingy !
Umm , I mean hugging her ... , YEAH , that's it ... !
-Gabi. ... I mean , apperrantly most pepole here preffer two pincers
over four hands ... , but why that is is beyond me ...
Enfilade
A bit about me. I've got a Masters' degree in War Studies from Royal
Military College, the Canadian equivalent of West Point. So I suppose
"warfare enthusiast" may describe some of my interests.
That being said, I do not necessarily support any/all wars. I don't
think this current campaign in Iraq was well thought out, nor do I
think it was necessary. I am concerned for the overall stability of
the Middle East which I believe will suffer from the American actions
in Iraq.
Transformers is a fictional forum where I can indulge all the "neat"
stuff about military machinery without having anyone RL get hurt.
It's fun because it's all make believe.
Reality carries considerably more responsibility.
--Enfilade/Stormy
Thomas Hamann
<snip, apologies for the late reply>
>
><snip big list of "if"s and arguments regarding the UN>
>
>I see you deleted something I wrote there. Here it is again:
>
>>> Now, I don't
>>> WANT you to start trying to establish this. Arguing over the
>>> possible long-term benefits and drawbacks of current US actions
>>> around the globe is an enormous, ultimately pointless debate to have
>>> here. There are many other places on the Net where it would be very
>>> welcome and appropriate, and I invite you to go there.
I saw that. I just gave a few 'What-if?' situation examples, just to
illustrate that I couldn't discuss it, since I can't prophetise the
future. Nothing to discuss about.
On the second part:
Do those other places have exactly the same people as on ATT?
Nope.
I think somebody else already argumented why ATT was the place to
discuss. I point you towards his argument.
Thomas Hamann
through the wires of the web:
>
>> The Dutch G1 Transformers comic ended with issue #75 (or the Dutch
>> equivalent thereof). It missed the last page of the US issue. Instead
>> the last page of the US comic, it had a goodbye wishing the
>> Transformers well.
>> The last page was a shot of Cybertron, damaged, but at peace. The war
>> was over. IMHO, that version of the story was much more powerful than
>> the US version. It had the perfect ending.
>
>I think that it had the _ideal_ ending , while not neccesserally the
>perfect one .
>BTW , do you know if this page is up somewhere on the web ?
I don't think so.
>I'd very much like to see it , along with the page that leads up to it
>.
I'll scan the last pages and put them up on my website. Give me a few
days.
>I have the last issue of the G1 comic , but this sounds like a
>fantastic ending to the comic .
>Even if it is "ideal" ... . :-)
>
>> I didn't stop buying Transformers after that. And my Micromasters had
>> many battles against an invisible enemy together after that.
>
>Does the "invisible enemy" bit mean that you had no micromasters from
>the opposite faction , or was this a made up story ?
All the Micromaster bases connect to each other, Decepticon and
Autobot bases alike. There had to be a reason for that little fact.
>Whatever the reason , I'm sure it lead to many heroic deaths of the
>microbastards , errr , I mean masters .
>
Errrrr....
<pictures pile of 40+ Micromasters, just slagged by Invisibliocron>
;)
>
>> Talking might only wield a compromise, and not all of our wishes might
>> end up in it, but it's better than war. A compromise is better than
>> nothing, better than death.
>
>Unfrtunetly many pepole on this planet don't see it that way .
>And come to think of it , the TF's didn't see it that way either .
>
That's why the last few issues before #75 (#32, in Dutch continuity)
are some of my favourites, especially the one where PM OP ends up
shaking Scorpy's claw.
>Or does one contemplate the idea that Optimus woud have sat back and
>let Megs go off and counquer to his energon pump's content ?
>
Well, in the comics, Megs blew himself up and was majorly incompetent
anyway. In the cartoon, he was also mostly a zero, except maybe in the
movie.
He couldn't have managed to keep anything he'd have conquered for
long. A bit like Saddam Hussein, in fact. Incompetent dictator.
Comics Shockwave, however, was a bit nastier, and righteously got his
ass kicked. I mean, he was willing to kill other Decepticons, who were
too 'weak' in his eyes (Scorponok, etc.), he was willing to start a
civil war just to reach what he wanted. In short, he was willing to
sacrifice part of the Decepticon army to reach his target. This
reminds me of certain real-life people, who are willing to sacrifice
international institutions for their own targets.
Galvatron was crazy. Perhaps he was a bit more competent than
Megatron, but still doomed to fail. He'll be Hitler, in the comparison
(see the future story called "Rythms of Darkness" that plays in 2009).
The competent, but too power-hungry dictator.
Thomas Hamann