Star Wars 411

[natetron46]

I think the Jedi were, at one time a crutch. When trouble arose you could always depend on Jedi. I think in the movies, however, the case is different. The numbers of Jedi left have begun to dwindle and the threats to the republic are growing more numerous and powerful. It adds up to be too much than a few Jedi can handle, no matter how powerful they are.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='natetron46']I think the Jedi were, at one time a crutch.[/quote]

[color=green]I'll agree that the Jedi helped the Old Republic maintain law and order, but by no means were they ever holding up the entire Republic. At best the Jedi had a guardian in every inhabited solar system in the galaxy. Even the force wasn?t powerful enough for them to single handedly maintain the Republic.

Tradition was the last standing pillar of the Old Republic, the pattern eons old that'd served the galaxy well for millennia. When Palpatine finally began to hack away at the blindly followed tradition of democracy and loyal opposition, the Republic imploded.[/color]

[Gavin]

[size=1]Oh come on Dave, now you're just picking certain sentences and making judgements.[/size]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']This is not necessarily true. Would you prefer a government that carries out evil acts, or a government that is impartial? Clearly, the only kind of positive government is one that acts only when necessary and stays out of it's citizens affairs the rest of the time.[/color][/quote]

[size=1]What I was saying is that regardless of it's morals a government that can at least act is superior to a government that is bogged down in the same red-tape and back-handedness that destroyed it before. In the end all the Rebels did is bring back a failing form of government that is as likely to fall to a dictator as it did last time because there is little interest in the common good.[/size]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']So you prefer the "blow up a planet to kill a few dissidents in a population of pacifists" approach?[/color][/quote]

[size=1]A few dissidents, that's being a little naive Dave. All our information on the government of Alderaan comes from Princess Leia's desperate plea to Tarkin as well as some information on StarWars.com that is 30 years out of date. What we know is that Princess Leia was a member of the Rebellion, we also know that her father was a member of the Rebellion. Now if the governing family of Alderaan supported the Rebellion it is proper order to assume that there were far more than a few dissidents on the planet. I mean the rebellion was probably using it as a base of operations, all Tarkin did was wipe out an enemy stronghold which is a common move in any war.[/size]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Another thing. The Jedi didn?t solve everyone's problems. They merely did their utmost to help out wherever they could. The Jedi Order was by no means a crutch for the Old Republic.[/color][/quote]

[size=1]Yeah and pretty soon Banthas are going to learn how to fly. The Jedi have always been the pedestal holding either Republic in place, and without them we see how quickly each one was ready to fall. The Jedi in the Old Republic were depended on to solve diplomatic problems in every nook of the Old Republic, including the ascension of Bail Organa?s family to rule Alderaan. During war time they were made the officer class of the Old Republic?s Clone Army and they were even religated to body-guard duty for wary Senators who believed that somebody was out to get them.

Things in the New Republic have changed little, hell two of it?s most respected members are the children of a certain Jedi turned Sith. In the war with the Yuuzhan Vong it was demanded of the New Republic that they give up the Jedi in return for certain ?concessions?, they did this and the Jedi were slaughtered left right and centre (including a grandchild of said Jedi turned Sith). The New Republic turns a blind eye to the plight of their once protectors only to have the Jedi begin to defeat the Vong and eventually being the ones to solve the mystery of the Vong once and for all. There is no way in hell you can say that the Jedi were not one of the main pillars that held up the Republic.[/size]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]That sounds great!

Let's now prefer having two forces of evil, each without regard for life on even the most basic level, fight to the death in a galaxy filled with innocent civilians.

I'd prefer having at least one of the warring factions work to protect life whenever possible?[/color][/quote]

[size=1]Oh and that's just dandy in the middle of a war in which one faction wants to completely annihilate the other as a sacrifice to their Gods. Without the Jedi to protect the New Republic (yet again we see that they [b]are[/b] indeed it's crutch), in the end it would have boiled down into a fight where the only victor would have been the one to completely destroy the other one. Innocents, do those innocents include the Yuuzhan Vong who believe they are fighting a war for their Gods, or does that ideal only count for those who already inhabited the Galaxy far, far away.[/size]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]That's not a bad thing, at least the New Republic doesn?t shoot first and ask questions later.

There comes a point where too much deliberation and not enough action is detrimental, but I'd prefer too much deliberation and careful consideration on a topic to instinctive action that will only be examined in retrospect.[/color][/quote]

[size=1]I assume you mean that whatever tiny segment of the New Republic that would be left if it were not for the Jedi to somehow pull a rabbit out of their hat to save it. The Republic?s inability to act was not because of "too much deliberation", it was because it was so slow to act because of internal strife and conflict. And then when the Vong had already a strangle hold the Republic decided that these guys mind indeed be an enemy worth taking action against.[/size]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Peace through superior firepower should be a joke, not a golden rule.[/color][/quote]

[size=1]I totally agree but unfortunately Dave it is not a joke even in the world we live in.[/size]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']Tradition was the last standing pillar of the Old Republic, the pattern eons old that'd served the galaxy well for millennia. When Palpatine finally began to hack away at the blindly followed tradition of democracy and loyal opposition, the Republic imploded.[/color][/quote]
I think this is also an important point to consider. If the Old Republic was indeed as feeble and ineffective as we are led to believe by the Prequels and OT, then Palpatine's approach to reconstruction, while certainly vicious (but that's not to say the Old Republic was all that clean, either), he certainly had the right idea. I don't think he should be entirely villified because the Old Republic definitely needed a restructuring. Nothing was getting done from what we've seen, apart from appointing a total incompetent into a position of power.

Really, when I think about it, Amidala had no power at all. She was just a cutesy figurehead, but yet she acted like she had power. The public doesn't need a government that can act; the public needs a government that can [i]do[/i].

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Siren]I think this is also an important point to consider. If the Old Republic was indeed as feeble and ineffective as we are led to believe by the Prequels and OT, then Palpatine's approach to reconstruction, while certainly vicious (but that's not to say the Old Republic was all that clean, either), he certainly had the right idea. I don't think he should be entirely villified because the Old Republic definitely needed a restructuring. Nothing was getting done from what we've seen, apart from appointing a total incompetent into a position of power.

Really, when I think about it, Amidala had no power at all. She was just a cutesy figurehead, but yet she acted like she had power. The public doesn't need a government that can act; the public needs a government that can [i]do[/i].[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Exactly, PT has summed up exactly what I've been saying. Yes Palpatine would eventually go on to create an Empire under his iron-fisted rule but the only reason that Empire came about was because of the underhanded nature that had crippled the Old Republic. As PT said all Palpatine did was restructure the Old Republic from a body, who supposedly had admirable beliefs but was plagued by corruption which led to it's inability to act without a reason to line the pockets of certain individuals.

From that it was converted into a body ruled by Palpatine under which there was no corruption, where action was taken at Palpatine's whim, and who's ideals are condemned as being "evil" by a group of insurrectionist bent on bringing back the antiquated and corrupt Old Republic. The Empire did commit acts of evil but at least it's acts were to be seem openly instead of shadowy and backhanded as was common in the Old Republic.

As for Senator Amidala she was little more than another tool at Palpatine's disposal, much like many other individuals ranging from Nute Gunray to Bail Organa who aided him in his ascent to Emperor. I recently read [b]Cloak of Deception[/b] a prequel novel to Episode One written by George Lucas and I have to say that it casts many characters in a much different light, including the "noble" Bail Organa and the "indecisive" Finius Valorum.[/SIZE]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Kane][size=1']A few dissidents, that's being a little naive Dave. All our information on the government of Alderaan comes from Princess Leia's desperate plea to Tarkin as well as some information on StarWars.com that is 30 years out of date. What we know is that Princess Leia was a member of the Rebellion, we also know that her father was a member of the Rebellion. Now if the governing family of Alderaan supported the Rebellion it is proper order to assume that there were far more than a few dissidents on the planet. I mean the rebellion was probably using it as a base of operations, all Tarkin did was wipe out an enemy stronghold which is a common move in any war.[/size][/quote]I think this is another good point.

Tarkin does not arbitrarily destroy Alderaan, for a variety of reasons, one of them being the obvious fact that Leia is lying about Alderaan's population. As Kane has pointed out, it would be incredibly naive to think that only a small percentage of Alderaan's population was armed, given that Leia and her surrogate father, Bail, were prominent supporters of the Rebellion. Darth Vader knows they are sympathetic. Tarkin knows. It could be said that the entire Empire knows.

So, for the viewer to think that the population of Alderaan either doesn't know, doesn't care, or generally, isn't involved in some way or another with the Rebellion, is foolhardy, because it's made very clear just how outspoken Leia is about the Rebellion and how clear her affiliation is with it.

Also, how do we know Leia was lying about her mission, or at least some part of it? Consider what planet A New Hope opens above: Tatooine, home of Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi, the very same Jedi Knight that Leia was seeking out. But her ship comes under attack, so she hides the plans and records the message. When questioned by Vader, she responds and lies to him. "Diplomatic mission to [i]Alderaan[/i]" my -ss, lol.

Now, when we place ourselves in the position of a power like The Empire, and are really just protecting our safety, and [i]know[/i] that a leader of the opposing forces is outright lying to us, are we simply going to let them go with a slap on the wrist? I think not. Did we let Al Qaida go with a simple slap on the wrist? Hussein?

It seems more and more that The Empire's actions are justifiable, in that they are commonplace in times of war. Granted, there surely were innocent civilians on Alderaan, but who is to say that there weren't innocent civilians aboard the [url="http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/?id=eu"][u]Death Star[/u][/url]? There is mention of shops, parks, etc aboard the Death Star, to make the soldiers more comfortable:

[quote]Since service on the Death Star was a long-term affair, the station maintained a number of [b]civilian amenities[/b] to make the time aboard a deep space station more comfortable. Parks, shopping centers and recreation areas could be found in the general sectors of the station.[/quote]It appears that there were civilians somewhere aboard the Death Star. Interesting.

You know, as I think about it more and more, and look deeper into the story, what seemed like a clear line between good and evil is becoming as murky as the swamps of Dagobah. :)

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]It would seem I am not alone in my beliefs that the Empire is not as evil as it's made out to be.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Siren]Tarkin does not arbitrarily destroy Alderaan, for a variety of reasons, one of them being the obvious fact that Leia is lying about Alderaan's population. As Kane has pointed out, it would be incredibly naive to think that only a small percentage of Alderaan's population was armed, given that Leia and her surrogate father, Bail, were prominent supporters of the Rebellion. Darth Vader knows they are sympathetic. Tarkin knows. It could be said that the entire Empire knows.

So, for the viewer to think that the population of Alderaan either doesn't know, doesn't care, or generally, isn't involved in some way or another with the Rebellion, is foolhardy, because it's made very clear just how outspoken Leia is about the Rebellion and how clear her affiliation is with it.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Exactly, we later learn that Bail Organa was actually one of the [b]Founders[/b] of the Rebellion along with fellow Senators Garm Bel-Iblis and Mon Mothma, the man was not just a member of the Rebellion, he helped to found it. Not only does this tell us that Alderaan was would be likely a Rebel base but Organa also has his adopted daughter running around using her Diplomatic credentials to transport information to the Rebels. We also know beyond contestation that R2-D2 was to be delivered to Alderaan in order to have the information on his hard drive received for use by Rebel forces, this is a clear indication that Alderaan was a Rebel base of operations.

I find it amusing that people think the destruction of Alderaan was unjust, it [b]was[/b] more than likely a Rebel stronghold, we can see that from the above information and so justly was a target for destruction. I find it a little more than interesting that three of the Senates most ambitious Senators would "nobly" create a Rebellion for the purpose of freeing the Galaxy from the Empire's tyranny and restoring a form of government in which they had substantial power. Tarkin said the use of the Death Star on Alderaan was to be "a demonstration? for those who would support the Empire, it was meant to be used once and then kept as a consequence to those who would support the Rebellion.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Siren]It seems more and more that The Empire's actions are justifiable, in that they are commonplace in times of war. Granted, there surely were innocent civilians on Alderaan, but who is to say that there weren't innocent civilians aboard the [url="http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/?id=eu"][u]Death Star[/u][/url]? There is mention of shops, parks, etc aboard the Death Star, to make the soldiers more comfortable:

[quote]Since service on the Death Star was a long-term affair, the station maintained a number of civilian amenities to make the time aboard a deep space station more comfortable. Parks, shopping centers and recreation areas could be found in the general sectors of the station[/quote]

It appears that there were civilians somewhere aboard the Death Star. Interesting.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]The plot thickens, we now see that the Death Star, the implement of the Imperial "genocide" was to be a long term home for it's soldiers and more than likely their families. We can now see with distinction that the Rebellion is as guilty of murdering countless innocent civilians as the Empire, I would ask anyone here to dispute me when I say that the destruction of the Death Star by the Rebels is comparable to that of Alderaan as an act of Mass-Murder. The fact is that the people we are presented with on both sides make the difference, the young, brave and noble members of the Rebellion fighting the old, militaristic and evil leaders of the Empire. A cunning move by Lucas but it doesn't hold up under severe scrutiny.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Siren']You know, as I think about it more and more, and look deeper into the story, what seemed like a clear line between good and evil is becoming as murky as the swamps of Dagobah. :)[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I couldn't agree more but at least we get to see both sides in a more truthful light.[/SIZE]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Kane][size=1']The plot thickens, we now see that the Death Star, the implement of the Imperial "genocide" was to be a long term home for it's soldiers and more than likely their families. We can now see with distinction that the Rebellion is as guilty of murdering countless innocent civilians as the Empire, I would ask anyone here to dispute me when I say that the destruction of the Death Star by the Rebels is comparable to that of Alderaan as an act of Mass-Murder. The fact is that the people we are presented with on both sides make the difference, the young, brave and noble members of the Rebellion fighting the old, militaristic and evil leaders of the Empire. A cunning move by Lucas but it doesn't hold up under severe scrutiny.[/size][/quote]
It had occurred to me that one counter a "Pro-Rebellion" person might use was that the Death Star was a very real physical threat, with actual planet-sized destructive capabilities, and thus did pose a threat, as compared to Alderaan, which is a planet, nothing more.

The problem with that argument is while Alderaan may not have been a "technological terror," and thus not being a [i]physical[/i] threat, it was certainly an [i]Ideological[/i] threat. It was, like you mentioned in your post, a planet most likely filled with Rebellion propaganda that was designed to conjure up support for the Rebellion.

We could say that Alderaan, like Leia, was a [i]symbol[/i] of the Rebellion, and in any war, destroying symbols of power (WTC, anyone?) proves quite effective to destroy enemy morale.

One could say that Alderaan posed just as much of a threat to The Empire as the Death Star did to the Rebellion, and I think the comparison is strengthened when we see that their respective destructions are "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." They also occur at relatively the same point at the beginning points and endpoints of A New Hope. I think, after looking at A New Hope a bit, it's quite clear that Alderaan and the Death Star are counters to each other, and both proving equally detrimental to the opposing side, albeit in slightly different ways.

Further, as we consider this more and more, we see that Alderaan's destruction was no mere fluke, and Tarkin was no fool at all. He understood concepts of battle in wartime, understood the dynamics of casualties, and most importantly, knew how to hit the enemy where it meant the most. Tarkin is a strategist, and a rather brilliant one at that.

[James]

[QUOTE=Siren]
One could say that Alderaan posed just as much of a threat to The Empire as the Death Star did to the Rebellion, and I think the comparison is strengthened when we see that their respective destructions are "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." They also occur at relatively the same point at the beginning points and endpoints of A New Hope. I think, after looking at A New Hope a bit, it's quite clear that Alderaan and the Death Star are counters to each other, and both proving equally detrimental to the opposing side, albeit in slightly different ways.

[/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]I think you could argue that the two are opposites in one sense; Alderaan is pure, filled with lush forests and a peaceful civilization. It is the opposite to the Death Star in that it poses no threat to anyone; it's a completely peaceful entity.

But the Death Star is black, cold, harsh and entirely synthetic. Unlike Alderaan, which just sits there doing no harm, the Death Star actively goes after other planets. It's the hunter, Alderaan is the hunted.

That's my opinion, anyway. Again, I don't think that any analysis could suggest that the Empire is "good" or benevolent, at least in the context of the film (and that is, afterall, the topic of discussion). The Alderaan/Death Star comparison only serves to increase the impact of that point.[/color]

[quote name='Kane']I agree with James here, even if we were to see Star Wars from The Empire's point of view I highly doubt that our opinions would change, yes it is a film and yes it is set at a slant but not slanted enough to justify The Empire's acts of genocide.[/quote]

[color=#707875]I just wanted to point out that of course there is no justification for the Empire's acts of genocide. That's the whole point. That's why they're evil. lol[/color]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]I think you could argue that the two are opposites in one sense; Alderaan is pure, filled with lush forests and a peaceful civilization. It is the opposite to the Death Star in that it poses no threat to anyone; it's a completely peaceful entity.

But the Death Star is black, cold, harsh and entirely synthetic. Unlike Alderaan, which just sits there doing no harm, the Death Star actively goes after other planets. It's the hunter, Alderaan is the hunted.

That's my opinion, anyway. Again, I don't think that any analysis could suggest that the Empire is "good" or benevolent, at least in the context of the film (and that is, afterall, the topic of discussion). The Alderaan/Death Star comparison only serves to increase the impact of that point.[/color][color=black][/quote][/color]

I do agree with you that the physicality of the two is entirely different. That cannot be disputed. Alderaan is a lush paradise, and the Death Star is a cold and unforgiving sphere of steely destruction.

So, they're different in that aspect, but I do think they [i]are[/i] similar in how they're used. Both are propaganda and used in Ideological warfare. I think it is reasonable to say that Alderaan is a symbol of the Rebellion, and likewise, the Death Star is symbolic of The Empire, and because of this, it makes perfect sense in times of war to strike the inspirational symbols that your enemy praises.

Alderaan is destroyed, Leia is reported as dead...this all points to The Empire using conventional war-time strategies designed to inflict morale damage.

I notice you put quotations around the word, "good," and I agree on that. I find that labelling The Empire and the Rebellion in Star Wars doesn't really lend itself to anything more than simply enabling an easier, quicker reference. But like I said before, it's starting to become clearer and clearer that the line between "good" and "evil" is really only superficial.

[color=#707875][color=black][quote][/color]I just wanted to point out that of course there is no justification for the Empire's acts of genocide. That's the whole point. That's why they're evil. lol[/color][/QUOTE]But again, in destroying the Death Star, it's not as if the Rebellion is killing only militants. If the Death Star does indeed house the soldiers' families, and there has been little evidence to dispute that, there were civilian women and children on-board when the Death Star was destroyed. This indicts the Rebellion on the same count of genocide that The Empire is charged with regarding the destruction of Alderaan.

We may argue that in living on the Death Star, those families accepted the risk...call it Military Wives Complex, and their deaths are then less profound or meaningful because they knew of the risk.

But the same can be said of Alderaan's civilians, because despite what I read on the Starwars.com Databank files on Alderaan, how the officials kept their ties to the Rebellion covert, I don't believe for a second that the general public had no idea what was going on, as Princess Leia herself was so outspoken in her support for the Rebellion. They had to have known what they were getting themselves into, lol.

Because of this, the civilian deaths on Alderaan seem rather similar to those of the civilians aboard the Death Star, so then to charge The Empire with genocide, without considering the Rebellion's actions in the same manner of evaluation, is...playing favorites?

Also, why does the Rebellion destroy the Death Star? Because it's a threat to their well-being.

Well, why does The Empire destroy Alderaan, because it's a threat to their well-being.

EDIT: I'm such a nerd, and an evil, evil spin-doctor...lol.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]If Siren goes much further I may be replaced as the chief Imperial spin-doctor.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]I think you could argue that the two are opposites in one sense; Alderaan is pure, filled with lush forests and a peaceful civilization. It is the opposite to the Death Star in that it poses no threat to anyone; it's a completely peaceful entity.

But the Death Star is black, cold, harsh and entirely synthetic. Unlike Alderaan, which just sits there doing no harm, the Death Star actively goes after other planets. It's the hunter, Alderaan is the hunted.[/color][/quote]

[SIZE=1]James I think that point is completely flawed, yes Alderaan and the Death Star are different in terms of appearance and construction but there is no way you can base an argument on the aesthetic appearance of each side. It is the way in which Lucas presents them by which our opinions of them in formed, when we first see Alderaan it is presented to us in such as way that it masks the negative about it. Yes it is a beautiful celestial body, but it is not home to a peaceful civilisation as we are lead to believe.

I disagree with you James when you say that Alderaan just "sat there and did no harm", it was home to Rebel forces intent on resurrecting the Old Republic using violent means. It has been proven that it was more than likely a Rebel base of operations, a planet where the Rebellion had ample ability to spread it's propaganda and as such was as dangerous to the Empire as the Death Star was in it's own right. As Siren has pointed out, what we are dealing with here is symbolism, the symbol of the Rebellion being the heartless destruction of the "peaceful" Alderaan by the Empire.

It is in this same presentation that we form our opinion of the Death Star a giant ominous looking battle station capable of destroying entire planets in it's awesome display of firepower. Yes it was cold and artificial, harsh and foreboding, however this was it's appearance as Lucas saw fit to show, had we seen the parks, the shops, the families of those Imperials serving aboard the Death Star I think we would have formed rather different opinion on it. We see the Death Star as an implement of galactic tyranny, a weapon capable of obliterating entire planets at the Empire's whim.

Now when we see Alderaan for the first time it looks a peaceful looking body, an Earth-like haven home to the beautiful Princess Leia who fights against the autocracy of the Empire. However Leia is really a violent insurrectionist, a member of a Rebellion intent on restoring its leaders to their previous positions of elevated power. Alderaan is not really peaceful, it's ruling family engage in acts of treason while it's people are Rebel sympathisers. It's destruction is marked as an act of genocide in order to kill a "few dissidents" by other Rebel sympathisers, where as in truth it's destruction was the eradication of a Rebel stronghold.

It is in the way that we are shown The Empire and the Rebellion that forms our initial opinions on them.[/SIZE]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']That's my opinion, anyway. Again, I don't think that any analysis could suggest that the Empire is "good" or benevolent, at least in the context of the film (and that is, afterall, the topic of discussion). The Alderaan/Death Star comparison only serves to increase the impact of that point.[/color][/quote]

[SIZE=1]But what you must remember James is that we are not trying to prove the Empire is good and benevolent because they simply aren't either or the two. What we are trying to do is at least show both the Empire and the Rebellion in the same light because the one in which it is shown is far from accurate. Both groups commit acts of genocide, The Empire destroyed Alderaan killing millions of Rebel operatives and sympathisers, The Rebels destroyed [b]two[/b] Death Stars killing possibly millions of Imperial troops and their families. The Empire is autocratic and callous, the Republic is corrupt and decadent.[/SIZE]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']I just wanted to point out that of course there is no justification for the Empire's acts of genocide. That's the whole point. That's why they're evil. lol[/color][/quote]

[SIZE=1]It would seem my opinions have shifted somewhat in the last few weeks. And by that same sentiment we could say there is no justification for the destruction of the Death Star(s) because they were not dangerous unless you were a traitor to the Empire.[/SIZE]

[Zeta]

Well you see, the Death Star WAS made to inspire terror into the Rebellion. It's main purpose was to crush the Rebellion, and it so happened that they could house familes on it. But it's main objective is the same "stop the Rebellion." How do they do that? Destroy planets. Now look at it like this.

The Death Star was built by Wookie slaves, slaves mind you, on the planet Desparye(sp.). After it is finished, what does it do? It destroys the planet, with the slaves on it to [i]test[/i] it. Why didn't they try it on a backwater world with no population? Why didn't they use their own men to build it rather than slaves? It destroys Alderran, after Leia gives him the location of the Rebel base, even though it is an abandoned one. They destroy it AFTER mind you, when it was said that she could save her planet by confessing. Did they follow what they say? No. By reading into what Kane has said, they destroyed it because of the Rebellion possibly having a base there and what not. I find that complete rubbish. How many other planets out there have Rebellion factions o n it? Just leave the Death Star to destroy them, ultimately destroying more people than on the Death Star itself? It was destroyed so as to protect other planets with Rebel factions in the midst of innocent civilians. It was destroyed to keep the Rebellion going, which would bring a rightful government to the galaxy, albeit one plauged by a past failure. The Death Star is a symbol of Evil, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if families lived aboard, it was created for the purpose of destruction, nothing else.


To expand on a few things I said above. You say that the Rebellion commited acts of Genocide. Look at it this way. If the Rebellion hadn't fought, how many other planets would the Death Star have destroyed? Hundreds, maybe thousands. Billions of people, mostly innocents, would be dead. You are in the position of a leader of the Rebelliong, what do you want, to just let it go about its business searching out Rebel hideouts and destroying the whole planet of billions when only a few are with the Rebellion? Or do you make a stand, fight for yourself and the innocent bystanders, and destroy a weapon created for destruction?

Even if you do look at it from the Empires point of view, it is evil, period. But being on the side of the Empire, you [i]think[/i] you are the good guys. Destroying planets, slaughtering villages from orbit, you believe those are the ways of the good. But then again, Hitler and his soldies believed they were the ones that were right. The New Republic, hell even the old Republic never did things on this scale. The Seperatists, the Old Republics "Rebellion." Did they search out and destroy their planets and people? No, they searched for diplomatic solutions, and only turned to war at the last result.

Saying the Rebellion is "evil" (said in a few posts back talking about we onlu see it from their point of view and that rubbish) is like saying the Vong are the good side. We only see it from the Republics point of view. THe Vong believe they were right. Cleansing the galaxy of inferior beings, destroying planets with plauges( Star by Star). If you use common sense, you will see that what Lucas portrayed is the truth. Even if it is from the point of the Rebellion, it is the simple Truth.

We rebelled against the English. They precieved us as traitors and in the wrong, we saw ourselves in the light, as right. THe English thought they were right with their taxation, saying it was to help them. It was unfair, we had no representation and what not. But we say this as wrong. Just as the Rebellion saw the Empires deeds as wrong, and did what we did, rebelled against the tyranny of the Empire, just as we did with the British.

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='Kane][SIZE=1']James I think that point is completely flawed, yes Alderaan and the Death Star are different in terms of appearance and construction but there is no way you can base an argument on the aesthetic appearance of each side.[/SIZE][/quote]

[COLOR=green]There?s a reason they look different. Lucas is presenting a Zoroastrian vision of the future contained within the boundaries of a classic Greek myth. In this setting, good and evil are clearly defined. Good is light in color, usually white. Evil is its polar opposite, black. Hence Leia?s white dress and Vader?s black armor.

Imperial stormtroopers are dressed in white blast armor, symbolizing their [I]attempt[/I] at legitimacy. However, we see their leaders dressed in black. This contrast shows us the difference between the Empire?s outward appearance and it?s true dark heart. The officers of the Empire, in between these points, are appropriately dressed in gray.

So when we see the Death Star as a gray ball, attacking an earth-esque planet colored with white, blues and greens, it?s obvious who holds the moral high ground.[/color]

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][COLOR=green]There?s a reason they look different. Lucas is presenting a Zoroastrian vision of the future contained within the boundaries of a classic Greek myth. In this setting, good and evil are clearly defined. Good is light in color, usually white. Evil is its polar opposite, black. Hence Leia?s white dress and Vader?s black armor.

Imperial stormtroopers are dressed in white blast armor, symbolizing their [I]attempt[/I] at legitimacy. However, we see their leaders dressed in black. This contrast shows us the difference between the Empire?s outward appearance and it?s true dark heart. The officers of the Empire, in between these points, are appropriately dressed in gray.

So when we see the Death Star as a gray ball, attacking an earth-esque planet colored with white, blues and greens, it?s obvious who holds the moral high ground.[/color][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]An interesting point, yes from the point of view Lucas writes the film we are supposed to see The Rebellion being good and The Empire being bad and as such their clothing would reflect that point. To be honest I actually hadn't spotted the link between Leia's white dress and Vader's black armor though I could go back to my previous point that Leia is less-than-pious in her actions. The Officer class in an interesting point too, and yes I'd agree that they bring a level of respectability to the Empire.

I disagree with your point though about Alderaan holding the moral high ground against the Death Star, it's because we see so little of Alderaan before it's destruction that we judge it to be good and just. And in that same effect we only see the evil capacities of the Death Star which makes it to look more evil than it really is.

This arguement will basically boil down to those who want to look at Star Wars how George Lucas portrays it, and those who want to look at it under a light in which we see both sides as they truly are. [/SIZE]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='Kane][SIZE=1']This arguement will basically boil down to those who want to look at Star Wars how George Lucas portrays it, and those who want to look at it under a light in which we see both sides as they truly are. [/SIZE][/quote]

I'm going to step in here, just because what is said above has just about ZERO logic to it. "Star Wars how George Lucas portrays it," no matter what you may or may not think, [i]IS[/i] Star Wars, period. His portrayal is all there is to it. There is no alternative "both sides as they truly are." What the heck is that?? Both sides as they truly are, lol. Star Wars isn't real. It's a story of good vs. evil made up and told by George Lucas. If you want to say that he was "hiding the truth" from you, then you're gonna need to have your head examined.

[Zeta]

Just what are the true sides of it all?


The Empire being good? The Rebellion being bad? Palease, as Darkblade said, it is George Lucas' point of view, nothing else. You can choose to believe there is some deeper meaning, when there really isn't. It [i]is[/i] a story about good vs. evil. The Empire being evil, the Rebellion being good.


Here, I want to say/show something to you. From what I am able to grasp from your views, you are saying that to the Empire, the Rebellion is bad. Well any man with a shred of common sense can see that. But who is the true evil doers? The Rebellion who is fighting for fairness, and equality? Who has done more atrocities? THe Empire or the Rebellion? The Empire voluntarily(sp.) destroyed two planets, one being the planet it was built at to test it, and Alderaan. What did the Rebellion do? Destroyed two machines created for destruction to save the lives of many more than those on the Death Stars. There are no good things about the Death Stars. Something so massive, built by an Empire under a Dark Jedi, what else would it be used for besides to get his way?

The Empire is truly bad, and the Rebellion is good. It is as simple as that. You can't take something that is clearly pointed out in all the books, movies, games, anything Star Wars, and try to make it something it isn't. Everything says the Empire is bad, even if it is from the point of view of only the Rebellion.

How can the Empire not be bad is my question to you. When there is sufficien evidence to support your claim about what each side truly is, I take your views with a grain of salt. Don't feed me that the Death Star had families and everything on it either. What did Alderaan have? No families? What did Desparye have? No worker forced to work on a machine built for destruction?

Every Rebellion is seen as bad to those they are rebelling against. But what you have to look at is the whole picture. Why are the rebelling, what has the ruling power done to basically piss those people off to make a change.

The story is from George Lucas' point of view, which clearly states the Empire is evil period, with the Rebelliong being the fighters of good. Sorry if I sounded rude during this, but I am a die hard fan of Star Wars, and when someone tries to say that what has been said and shown since 1977, is basically bogus, I get a little angry. ^_^;;

[Gavin]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I'm going to step in here, just because what is said above has just about ZERO logic to it. "Star Wars how George Lucas portrays it," no matter what you may or may not think, [i]IS[/i'] Star Wars, period. His portrayal is all there is to it. There is no alternative "both sides as they truly are." What the heck is that?? Both sides as they truly are, lol. Star Wars isn't real. It's a story of good vs. evil made up and told by George Lucas. If you want to say that he was "hiding the truth" from you, then you're gonna need to have your head examined.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I don't believe that I have said anywhere in any post I have made in the Star Wars 411 thread that Star Wars was anything more than fiction or that George Lucas was "hiding the truth". What I have said it that there is more than one "point of view" on the way events are presented, other than the way George Lucas has shown it to us. Star Wars has grown as a story to the extent where we can see and read about the different events, groups and people who make up the story in greater detail than is available to us looking at the movies alone.

If you want to believe it's just a simple tale of Good versus Evil then that's your prerogative and that's fine. However many of the people here look at the story in all the detail there is available to see both groups of The Empire and The Rebellions as they really are. I am not saying that Star Wars is anything more than fiction, what I am saying is that you must look at it in it's entirety and make your judgements. As with any story the heroes are portrayed in the best possible light, the villains in the worst so as to make it easy to [B]prefer[/B] one side more easily.[/SIZE]

[Zeta]

The Rebellion and Empire are truley [i]what[/i] though? You have failed to explain what they really are without any way of showing us how. You have said things about the Rebellion being bad. How? You have said that the Empire isn't bad. Again how? Even when you look at it in its entirety, you see that the Empire is indeed bad, and the Rebellion is fighting the [i]good[/i] cause. I am still very curious as to how the Empire can be good and the Rebellion is bad. Please enlighten us on these views of yours. If you want us to possibly see it your way in the slightest, you have to work with us and say why you feel this way. So far you haven't, and the things you have said are way out there, borderline of insane. You have to look at the things you said with common sense and realize that what you said does not help you views in any way whatsoever. It just aims to confuse those who do not have a grasp of what and how far Star Wars is.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Kane][size=1]As with any story the heroes are portrayed in the best possible light, the villains in the worst so as to make it easy to [b]prefer[/b'] one side more easily.[/size][/quote]I'm going to reply fully to everyone later, but I thought I should briefly elaborate on this.

For those familiar with Apocalypse Now, they know it's a movie about Vietnam. They understand it's a film that explores the horrors of war. However, what some may not know or realize is one fact. It's rather obscure film trivia, though, so I wouldn't expect anyone to have heard of it, if they aren't interested in Apocalypse Now.

In the early stages of development for A.N., there were a few different directors being considered, and each director had their different vision for the film. One of those directors was George Lucas. His vision for A.N. was a pseudo-docmentary shot on-location, at the height of the Vietnam war. It would be filmed in black and white, on a handheld camera. He viewed A.N. as a way to show the struggles of a less-organized, weaker, more hit-and-run group of freedom fighters as they rebelled against an oppressive and almost dictatorial foreign regime.

What were those freedom fighters? The Viet Cong.

Who was that oppressive foreign regime? The United States of America.

Lucas' talks with Warner Bros fell through, however, and A.N. remained in limbo for a short time, until Coppola picked up the project and created what we now know as Apocalypse Now.

When Lucas wasn't going to direct Apocalypse Now, his version of which would have been an indictment of America's role in Vietnam, he went on to create Star Wars. Yes, there is a heavy Japanese influence, with mystical warriors and so forth, but for those who would like to argue that The Empire is evil, and the Rebellion is good, I think it's worth nothing that The Empire is really just George Lucas' science-fiction equivalent of America, and the Rebellion is the Viet Cong.

Depending on how you view Vietnam, you may agree or disagree, but I think before judging The Empire as evil, and the Rebellion as good, we should be aware of particular histories and backgrounds associated with Star Wars, and George Lucas' prior experience.

EDIT: Zeta, it seems as though I've answered your question without even knowing you asked it.

[Gavin]

[quote name='Zeta]The Rebellion and Empire are truley [i]what[/i] though? You have failed to explain what they really are without any way of showing us how. You have said things about the Rebellion being bad. How? You have said that the Empire isn't bad. Again how? Even when you look at it in its entirety, you see that the Empire is indeed bad, and the Rebellion is fighting the [i]good[/i'] cause. I am still very curious as to how the Empire can be good and the Rebellion is bad. Please enlighten us on these views of yours. If you want us to possibly see it your way in the slightest, you have to work with us and say why you feel this way. So far you haven't, and the things you have said are way out there, borderline of insane. You have to look at the things you said with common sense and realize that what you said does not help you views in any way whatsoever. It just aims to confuse those who do not have a grasp of what and how far Star Wars is.[/quote]

[size=1]It's late and I've got to head off after I finish this post so I'll answer your question as simply and quickly as I can Zeta. Go back one page to page 89 and read the discussion in full between myself, Boba Fett, James and Siren that should answer your questions about my opinions on The Rebels and The Empire. In saying that I never said the Rebellion was evil nor did I say The Empire was good, I merely said that they are shown in either their best or worst lights.[/size]

[Boba Fett]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]I'm going to step in here, just because what is said above has just about ZERO logic to it. "Star Wars how George Lucas portrays it," no matter what you may or may not think, [i]IS[/i'] Star Wars, period. His portrayal is all there is to it.[/quote]

[color=green]I don?t agree. When an artist completes a work, and releases it to the public, their vision no longer matters. All of their intentions, opinions and notions about their work are marginalized. Their product is now solely judged on what the public thinks of that work, and how [I]they[/I] see it.

For example, I can draw an white castle on white paper, and think it?s a stellar work of art, but all that really matters is what others see?[/color]


[quote name='Kane][SIZE=1]As with any story the heroes are portrayed in the best possible light, the villains in the worst so as to make it easy to [B]prefer[/B'] one side more easily.[/SIZE][/quote]

[color=green]Just because one side is good and the other side is evil, doesn?t mean that people are predisposed to favor those shown in a good light. In fact, the opposite is quite often true. That?s why most of my friends who are into Star Wars prefer the Empire and why you, I suspect, are attempting to spin in that direction.[/color]

[Zeta]

I just went and re-read page 89, and still stand by what I have said.

[QUOTE]I find it amusing that people think the destruction of Alderaan was unjust, it was more than likely a Rebel stronghold, we can see that from the above information and so justly was a target for destruction.[/QUOTE]

The Death Star was a military stronghold for the Empire, which had way more power than Alderaan, and was thus destroyed. If you say the destruction of Alderaan was just, then so was the Death Star.

The Death Star was [i]not[/i] made for a one time use. Common sense needs to come into play once again. An Empire facing a force that is actually causing them trouble, spends quite a lot of time, and money to build a station that can destroy planets for a one time use? Palease. We made the atomic bomb, something with extraordinary power to use in time of war. Did we use it once? No, we used it twice, just like the Death Star was used twice. The mere fact that someone can believe it was built for a one time use is beyond me, why waste all that money and supplies, when they can take their fleet of Star Destroyers and do the same thing and reduce the surface to rubble but leave the planet. No, the Death Star was made to destroy, no other reason, and would continue to be used for that purpose. Why else woud they build a new one? Thousands of planets, billions of planet in the galaxy where their soldiers can leave, why a space station that is meant for killing?

[QUOTE]We can now see with distinction that the Rebellion is as guilty of murdering countless innocent civilians as the Empire, I would ask anyone here to dispute me when I say that the destruction of the Death Star by the Rebels is comparable to that of Alderaan as an act of Mass-Murder.[/QUOTE]

Why did they do this you may ask? Well lets look at the facts. Alderaan may have been a Rebel stronghold as you and another have said. And you both claim that the people of Alderaan know about its ties with the Rebellion. If this were so, why are there no weapons on ALderaan? All their weapons are off in some spaceship from long ago, and they haven't made new ones. Wouldn't the people want to protect themselves if they knew they were i n this situation? They destroyed it, because the Empire destroyed Alderaan. What other reason? A space station just destroyed an entire planet, for the sake of a few(when I say few I mean quite a bit, seeing as how this is an entire planet we are talking about). But still come on,the Rebellion destroyed those lives for the greater good. Had they not, more innocent lives would have been destroyed by the Empire and its Death Star.

[QUOTE]From that it was converted into a body ruled by Palpatine under which there was no corruption, where action was taken at Palpatine's whim, and who's ideals are condemned as being "evil" by a group of insurrectionist bent on bringing back the antiquated and corrupt Old Republic.[/QUOTE]

How many planets were destroyed by the Old Republic? How many species were denied positions in the Senate? How are is actions NOT evil, I again ask. He destroys planets with space stations, he bombards planets from orbit, he kills countless innocent lives, none of which the Rebellion does WILLINGLY. The Old Republic may be corrupt, but how are they to know that their new government will be corrupt? All they know is that the Empire is not the way a galaxy is supposed to be run, but a new type should come and give equal opprotunities to ALL. Not only humans as was with the Empire.

[QUOTE]During war time they were made the officer class of the Old Republic?s Clone Army and they were even religated to body-guard duty for wary Senators who believed that somebody was out to get them. [/QUOTE]

They are designated the office class, because the Republic was not ready for a war. They needed people to lead, and the Jedi were their best bet. A highly disciplined group of men and women who could raise moral, fight alongside the men dieing. Who doesn't want to see a lone figure stand atop a hill and ignite a lightsaber and wait for the ensuing battle alongside his men? Obi-wan said they are not a "police force" or something to that effect in Ep. II. It is only in certain conditions when things like that are done.

[QUOTE]Now if that Empire had defeated the Rebellion things would be much different, after their initial contact with the Vong Palpatine would have ordered the research of said pathogen and used it to destroy the Vong efficiently and mercilessly. That or they would have used the Death Star to destroy the Vong fleet and any planet they had conquered to give them a clear message.[/QUOTE]

And again, how does that justify their actions? Yes the Vong are just as bad as the Empire, but look at the end of the NJO. Ultimately the good of the Republic, or whatever its new name is now, I just cant remember it, allowed them to live peacefully together. After the intial contact, the Empire would have just completely destroyed the Vong fleet at the Outer Rim. How would this send good messages across the galaxy. After a Rebellion that finished not too long ago, a new race appears and is utterly destroyed? Lets take into consideration that we do not know what the Vong are like at the time, pretend the NJO never happened the way it did. How would the people of the galaxy know they were bad guys? For all they know they could have been a race seeking refuge, and were utterly destroyed. The people would know that the Empire would do this, what with the destruction of Alderaan allready i n history.

[QUOTE]No, they decide that it would be too much like the Empire to do something of that nature and continue to get pounded.[/QUOTE]

EXACTLY! Just as Boba(my good ole' pal Boba ;)) said, the Republic has a sense of right and wrong. Under no reason should something be used that can destroy and entire race. It is just plain [i]wrong[/i]. Nevermind if the Empire would do that or not, after reading something like that, would you want to think of them as a good guy? Geeze, c'mon get real. Rather fight fairly against and enemy that doesn't and win, and show who is actually the ones in the right.

[QUOTE]Well think about it, a government that can do something is at least better than a government that can do nothing, aside from their resounding differences in terms of rights and ideals you'd have to admit that the Empire is at least capable of guarding itself without relying on the Jedi to solve everyone of it's problems. [/QUOTE]

It guards itself by means than any free-thinking man/woman realize is atrocious and therefor gives the Rebellion all new meaning.

[QUOTE]Now if the Vong had faced the full strength of the Empire they would have been fighting a war against an enemy who had the same regard for life as they did, in the end the Yuuzhan Vong were as eager to commit xenocide at the Empire was. [/QUOTE]

Well that is a good thing to know, I agree with Boba. With a war between the two of them, there would be nothing left in the galaxy anyways, so it wouldn't matter.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=Boba Fett][color=green]I don?t agree. When an artist completes a work, and releases it to the public, their vision no longer matters. All of their intentions, opinions and notions about their work are marginalized. Their product is now solely judged on what the public thinks of that work, and how [I]they[/I] see it.

For example, I can draw an white castle on white paper, and think it?s a stellar work of art, but all that really matters is what others see?[/color][/QUOTE]

Ok what you have said is really, really wrong. An artist's vision/intent matters [i]very[/i] much when you are having any sort of discussion relating to the subject of his work. That's why it helps to know history, the artist's life, etc. when you are trying to understand why he created what he did. But all that is to arrive at his [i]intent[/i]. Because without knowing what the artist wanted to portray, you have nothing to make a judgement against.
Anyway, I don't really want to give you a lesson on art criticism in general, but just know that if you disregard the intent of a work's creator, you are disregarding the reason it exists and the reason it is what it is. And unless you're discussing art from the late 19th century, from the "art for art's sake" period, you'd be doing a grave injustice to the artist in doing so.

Your example is completely inappropriate. You gave an example of quality judgement, which has [i]no[/i] relation to what I was talking about, or what anyone here is discussing. No relation whatsoever. If you wanted to give an example to support the nonsense you proposed, you'd have to say "for example, I can draw a white castle on white paper, but if someone else said that I actually tried to draw a purple CD-spindle, I'd be wrong." Yeah, that's what we're talking about and what your stance would amount to. Think about it and you'll hopefully realize that.

In this particular case, it matters very much what George Lucas intended. People here are alluding to this nebulous "true situation" when it comes to the Empire and Rebellion, not realizing that Lucas had a very [i]certain[/i] situation in mind. Regardless of whether you think he was successful at communicating it or not. To say that "really," the Empire is not as evil as we're shown, etc., is recreate Star Wars in your own mind. If you (not necessarily Boba, but whoever is arguing against Zeta basically) can get a statement from Lucas saying that indeed, the Empire and the Rebellion were nothing more than warring factions and were on similar moral ground (based on his moral principles, by the way, and this is key!), then your arguments will be legitimate. Until then, you're rewriting things for him, and trying to convince us that that's how they truly are. Good luck with that.

[Zeta]

[QUOTE]When Lucas wasn't going to direct Apocalypse Now, his version of which would have been an indictment of America's role in Vietnam, he went on to create Star Wars. Yes, there is a heavy Japanese influence, with mystical warriors and so forth, but for those who would like to argue that The Empire is evil, and the Rebellion is good, I think it's worth nothing that The Empire is really just George Lucas' science-fiction equivalent of America, and the Rebellion is the Viet Cong.[/QUOTE]


This is just my take on this. What you say does make sense. But what you also say can be used in many different situations. The US colonists being the freedom fighters, and the British as the oppressive regime. For all we know, Lucas could have decided to do that thing with A.N. after reading some American Revolution book, and wanting to do something similar to that by following the US colonists, found the similarity in the Vietnam war. I don't agree with that, unless it is stated outright by Lucas, and if you claim it is, I want proof, I just find that a coincidence. There are so many other possibilities with this if you want to go with it, with the Vietnam war one being the only possible one to make it happen, but not the only inspiration.

Besides, I was asking what Kane thought they really are, since we never explained what he meant. I am assuming he means Rebellion aren't the good guys we make them out to be and what not. I didn't mean the question so literally. ^_^;;

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Zeta]This is just my take on this. What you say does make sense. But what you also say can be used in many different situations. The US colonists being the freedom fighters, and the British as the oppressive regime. For all we know, Lucas could have decided to do that thing with A.N. after reading some American Revolution book, and wanting to do something similar to that by following the US colonists, found the similarity in the Vietnam war. I don't agree with that, unless it is stated outright by Lucas, and if you claim it is, I want proof, I just find that a coincidence. There are so many other possibilities with this if you want to go with it, with the Vietnam war one being the only possible one to make it happen, but not the only inspiration.

Besides, I was asking what Kane thought they really are, since we never explained what he meant. I am assuming he means Rebellion aren't the good guys we make them out to be and what not. I didn't mean the question so literally. ^_^;;[/QUOTE]My proof is the following book:

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582340145/qid=1093817039/sr=ka-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-4573084-5242522"][u]Apocalypse Now: A Bloomsbury Movie Guide[/u][/url]. The book was very well-receieved among professional and casual reviewers alike, and nearly every review praises the author's meticulous examination of Apocalypse Now. Considering, also, that this information regarding Lucas' original vision for Apocalypse Now is corroborated in part at [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/trivia"][u]IMDB.com's Apocalypse Now trivia page[/u][/url], I think that's all the confirmation we need.

Star Wars' plot, the "Good" vs "Evil," is entirely based on the Vietnam War, and The Empire is America, and the Rebellion is the Viet Cong.

We could doubt all of this, but the timing, the circumstances, the world issues at the time, and general attitudes toward the films in discussion, all point to Lucas' vision for Apocalypse Now being transformed into the high-gloss, high-energy, science-fiction/fantasy Star Wars. It's really interesting when you think about it, isn't it? All of this time, some have praised the Rebellion and hated The Empire without knowing what the Rebellion and Empire really stood for back in 1977.

I find that the arguments here for the set "Good/Evil" are focused on one aspect and one alone: that the visuals point to a very particular character coloring. That interpretation may be all well and good if we simply see Star Wars as visual and nothing more, but there are definite subtle social and political commentaries running through the Saga; one can see that even in this very thread. Because of this, basing the alignments purely on the visuals of Star Wars, while understandably attractive, should not be considered legitimate criticisms.

In Vietnam, there was no "Good" or "Bad," despite what propaganda we may have seen. Both the US and North Vietnamese were guilty of absolutely dreadful actions that border on animalistic. I've spoken with veterans about Coppola's Apocalypse Now, and they explain that apart from the more fantastic elements of it, that level of human degeneration and susceptibility to crack under pressure is incredibly and eerily accurate.

Sciros and Boba Fett are discussing the intent of an artist, but I think both of them are missing a key point here: that Lucas' intent with Star Wars was to criticize American policies regarding Vietnam. To say that The Empire is evil and the Rebellion is good would be ignoring Lucas' intent. We can all agree that he is no fool, just a misguided technical filmmaker.

Now, I'd like to hit a few points made earlier in the thread.

[quote name='Zeta]The Death Star was [i]not[/i] made for a one time use. Common sense needs to come into play once again. An Empire facing a force that is actually causing them trouble, spends quite a lot of time, and money to build a station that can destroy planets for a one time use? Palease. [b]We made the atomic bomb, something with extraordinary power to use in time of war. Did we use it once? No, we used it twice, just like the Death Star was used twice.[/b'] The mere fact that someone can believe it was built for a one time use is beyond me, why waste all that money and supplies, when they can take their fleet of Star Destroyers and do the same thing and reduce the surface to rubble but leave the planet. No, the Death Star was made to destroy, no other reason, and would continue to be used for that purpose. Why else woud they build a new one? Thousands of planets, billions of planet in the galaxy where their soldiers can leave, why a space station that is meant for killing?[/quote]Zeta, you have just compared The Empire to America, which is the precise comparison Lucas has been making all along.

[quote]Why did they do this you may ask? Well lets look at the facts. Alderaan may have been a Rebel stronghold as you and another have said. And you both claim that the people of Alderaan know about its ties with the Rebellion. [b]If this were so, why are there no weapons on ALderaan?[/b] All their weapons are off in some spaceship from long ago, and they haven't made new ones. Wouldn't the people want to protect themselves if they knew they were i n this situation? They destroyed it, because the Empire destroyed Alderaan. What other reason? A space station just destroyed an entire planet, for the sake of a few(when I say few I mean quite a bit, seeing as how this is an entire planet we are talking about). But still come on,the Rebellion destroyed those lives for the greater good. Had they not, more innocent lives would have been destroyed by the Empire and its Death Star.[/quote]But what are you basing that statement on? What evidence is there that Alderaan is weaponless? There are only the films, and EU.

The EU is based on the films, so then what in the films would be the basis for a statement that Alderaan was weaponless?

Princess Leia, who is clearly lying during the entire interrogation. She is as unreliable as unreliable narrators can be.

We can only base Alderaan's weapon cache or lack thereof on an unreliable testimonial from an unreliable narrator gathered in a moment of panic.

That puts a rather significant hole in the statement's accuracy.

[quote name='Zeta']Well you see, the Death Star WAS made to inspire terror into the Rebellion. It's main purpose was to crush the Rebellion, and it so happened that they could house familes on it. But it's main objective is the same "stop the Rebellion." How do they do that? Destroy planets. Now look at it like this.[/quote]Physically, it's very powerful, and visually, it's very intimidating. But there are different types of damage other than physical. In a conflict, words are often the more destructive force. Call it Verbal Propaganda. When engaged in war, if you are facing an enemy that you cannot defeat physically, then you use psychological warfare, appeal to or attack their emotions. Question them, raise doubt about their authority. These tactics are commonplace in war, or even in a major argument with one's father. Verbal propaganda is just as destructive and detrimental in war as physical force is. Their means of execution are simply just different.

If you openly and vehemently criticize a government or ruling body, you will be punished, and should be punished if your statements threaten the safety of that government. This is seen with Al Qaida's assaults of America on local TV stations in Afghanistan, and America's retaliation or lack thereof. Insurgents like Al Qaida and the Rebellion do not respond to verbal threats, and therefore, a stronger show of force is necessary, hence, Tarkin's instructions for the commander to "Fire when ready."

[QUOTE]The Death Star was built by Wookie slaves, slaves mind you, on the planet Desparye(sp.). After it is finished, what does it do? It destroys the planet, with the slaves on it to [i]test[/i] it. Why didn't they try it on a backwater world with no population? Why didn't they use their own men to build it rather than slaves?[/QUOTE]Despayre was an Outer Rim planet for degenerates and home to a wide range of prison complexes that detained dangerous criminals of all types and races.

When requiring a body for brute labor, why would Tarkin use his own men when he has these expendable manpower resources available? It makes little financial or strategic sense to ship his own soldiers or recruits to a distant planet on the Outer Rim to construct a superweapon when there are workers readily available there already.

Considering that the labor force was comprised of expendable scum, and the planet was good for little more than prison labor, destroying the planet was the next logical step, having exhausted the resources the planet had to offer. It sounds cold, I know, but in times of war, one cannot be boggled down by emotion. One has to act with precision and waste nothing; if it can be cut, cut it.

[QUOTE] It destroys Alderran, after Leia gives him the location of the Rebel base, even though it is an abandoned one. They destroy it AFTER mind you, when it was said that she could save her planet by confessing. Did they follow what they say? No. By reading into what Kane has said, they destroyed it because of the Rebellion possibly having a base there and what not. I find that complete rubbish. How many other planets out there have Rebellion factions o n it? Just leave the Death Star to destroy them, ultimately destroying more people than on the Death Star itself? It was destroyed so as to protect other planets with Rebel factions in the midst of innocent civilians. It was destroyed to keep the Rebellion going, which would bring a rightful government to the galaxy, albeit one plauged by a past failure. The Death Star is a symbol of Evil, plain and simple. Doesn't matter if families lived aboard, it was created for the purpose of destruction, nothing else.[/QUOTE]I've already mentioned how Verbal Propaganda is just as, if not more, dangerous than physical violence, but I'd like to repeat what we know from the films.

We know that Leia is a Rebel sympathizer and can be considered the [i]leader[/i] of the Rebellion, that her father was a Rebel sympathizer, that both she and her father are high-ranking government officials on the planet of Alderaan.

We know that Leia is on her way home (as the opening text crawl explains in A New Hope) to Alderaan, to deliver the plans so the Rebellion can analyze them for a weakness.

We know that she lies about why she is going to Alderaan (like I've said before: "Diplomatic Mission to Alderaan," my -ss), and we even see her above Tatooine, which is far from Alderaan (hyperspace jump). We know from her message to Obi-Wan Kenobi that "her plans to reach him have failed."

This is just from the first 20 minutes of A New Hope, keep in mind. While it's nice to believe Leia's comments, we never see Alderaan, and the only information we have about it comes from Leia herself. I mentioned this above, but I suppose it's worth repeating. Leia is an unreliable narrator, because she has everything to gain by lying and everything to lose if she tells the truth.