Star Wars 411

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Siren has gone through most of what I wanted to say in his previous post but I shall address Zeta?s points where he quotes me.[/SIZE]

[quote=Zeta]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 not 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? Please. 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 would 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]

[size=1]Yes the destruction of the Death Star could be justified as a destroyed enemy base, and I would agree with that. What I was saying was that we only see the most destructive side of the Death Star, we never see the families of soldiers or their children which makes it far easier to dismiss it as having nothing good about it. It is the polar opposite with Alderaan, all we see it this serene planet that seems to have nothing dubious about it in any way, and as such it?s destruction can be marked down as an act of genocide. Yes it was an act of genocide and as you seem to be very patriot Zeta I could easily compare it to the destruction of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by America, however we are not dealing with American acts of genocide in this thread.

We know Leia lies about Alderaan, she claims she is a diplomat on a mission of Alderaan but she is lying, she is a traitor conspiring with her father and other high ranking Rebels to find a weakness in the Death Star so they can destroy it. When Imperial forces on her ship try to arrest her at the start of the film she kills them thus she is also a murderer, she is carrying classified information about the Death Star to go to Alderaan so it can be decoded and inspected for a weakness. I would put it to you Zeta that Leia so called ?facts? about Alderaan are not acceptable as facts as she, her father and the vast majority of the people of Alderaan supported the Rebellion. Alderaan?s destruction was a military action in a war against violent insurrectionists who threatened the security of The Empire, it was one of many symbols of the Rebellion which gave it strength.

I disagree about the Death Star being created for more than one-time usage, the Death Star was created to wipe out planets with Rebel bases such as Alderaan and Yavin 4. It?s sheer destructive power was meant to be a warning for those other systems who would stand with The Rebels against the Empire, as Tarkin himself said ?Fear of will keep the local systems in line, fear of [b]this[/b] Battle Station?. His intent was to wipe out one Rebel stronghold as a clear message and then keep the Death Star as consequence who would turn traitor. Using a fleet of Star Destroyers would be in expensive and inefficient use of Imperial resources, as Han said it would take 1000 Star Destroyers to do the same job the Death Star was capable of doing in a single stroke.

1000 Star Destroyers would require millions of troops to be in the same area at any given time, it would also require huge amount of supplies and as such is not a viable use of resources. The Death Star cuts down on these requirement while still allowing the Imperial Navy to do it?s job patrolling the Empire and keeping it?s people safe from the likes of the Black Sun Crime Syndicate and The Hutts. Many people seem to think that the Imperial Navy does little beyond trying to defeat The Rebellion, it does have other tasks as the main military force protecting the Empire and it?s [b]loyal[/b] citizens.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta'] 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 in 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]

[size=1]Where are you basing this information about Alderaan having no weapons, the Alderaan as described in the StarWars.com Database is one that is set in the Clone Wars. We have little information about Alderaan at the time of it?s destruction and as such we can only hypothesise about it with what information we do have available to us. As I have said before the [b]entire[/b] ruling family of Alderaan, the Organas were high ranking members of The Rebellion, as such it is likely there was a Rebel base on Alderaan because R2 was to go there to have the information about the Death Star extracted. We can also assume with near certainty that the Rebels would have been armed regardless of whether the vast population of Alderaan would have been. If Leia was so stringent about her father?s (Bail) act of banning weapons then why at the beginning of A New Hope is she and the Rebel forces on her ship armed.

As for the reasons behind the destruction of Alderaan both Siren and I have given reasons why it was a threat though not a physical one in a direct sense. I also disagree with you use of the word a ?few? to describe the Rebel forces there in, we know that Alderaan sympathised with the Rebellion, we also know that their leader Bail Organa and their senator Leia were high ranking members of the Rebellion (As I said before Bail helped to found the Rebellion more than likely attempting to get back the power he had lost to Palpatine). Now with such proof and facts about Alderaan we can postulate that there were far more than a ?few? Rebels among Alderaan?s population.

You say more ?innocent lives? would have been lost, who?s lives, Rebels ? We know that the Rebellion isn't innocent, it is made up of violent traitors and founded by power hungry senators. The Death Star as I have said was for use against Rebel strongholds, not innocent planets, it was made to be used to destroy planets that stood against the Empire as enemies. As such it cannot be said that the Death Star is meant to eradicate ?innocent lives? when it clearly isn?t.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta']How many planets were destroyed by the Old Republic? How many species were denied positions in the Senate? How are his 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 opportunities to ALL. Not only humans as was with the Empire.[/quote]

[size=1]Zeta will you please use a Spell Check or something because you spelling is at times less than readable, anyway on to your point. We know that the Old Republic was engaged in the Hyper Space War at one stage, this like any war resulting in the destruction of enemy lives, the Old Republic being involved in this war more than likely took it?s far share of lives. The Clone War was sanctioned by the Senate by giving Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers, this war raged across the galaxy with the Jedi being involved in front-line fighting, people on both sides were killed in the fighting, planets may have been made uninhabitable. The Old Republic was involved in the Sith Wars millennia ago which saw the destruction of many planets and the deaths of millions. As we can see the Old Republic was quite capable of such acts without Palpatine and before he created The Empire.

How do you know that The Old Republic is the way the Galaxy is meant to be ? Are you omnipotent ? Are you licensed by LucasArts to write the future of Star Wars as a series ? No... thought as much. You say that the Old Republic gave equal opportunities to all, do you ? I would dispute that by saying that the corruption and back-handed nature of The Old Republic made it quite difficult for anyway one get equal opportunities unless it was in the interest if those with power. The Empire discriminates in favour of human yes, but at least it does so without corruption as plagued it?s predecessor.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta']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 dying. 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 Episode II. It is only in certain conditions when things like that are done.[/quote]

[size=1]I?m not sure what point you?re trying to make there. Actually I believe it was Mace Windu who said there were ?keepers of the peace, not soldiers?. If memory serves it even went against the beliefs of the Jedi to engage in a war on the behalf of The Old Republic, it is only because of the Sith influence of that war that made the Jedi join the fray. The fact that there were made the Officer Class of the Republic?s Army shows that the Jedi willingly engaged the war with Clone Troopers, these were not young men who?d grown up in the splendour and wondrous opportunities of the Old Republic. They were grown in a tube and programmed to follow orders, much like their enemies the Droid Armies of the Separatists. Your point about the Jedi on the hilltop has no relevance so I?ll ignore it.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta']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 initial 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 already in history.[/quote]

[size=1]It doesn?t justify their actions, however the Republic?s shirking attitude towards it?s conflict with the Yuuzhan Vong proved that it was incapable of fighting such an enemy. The moral dilemmas of the Republic are wonderful to debate while you being annihilated by an enemy bent on wiping out you and your people as a sacrifice to their gods. I think you?re being a little naive here about war, in war there is little time for debating to morality of using super-weapons to defeat you enemies (a lá Hiroshima and Nagasaki) if they are continually beating the stuffing out of your forces in every encounter.

If memory serves the final book of the New Jedi Order has yet to be printed so I find it interesting that you seem to know it?s outcome already, though I suspect it will end in someway similar to the Vong leaving New Republic space and just going away. Now had the Empire ?completely destroyed? the Vong fleet it would have saved millions of people in the Empire from being killed by Yuuzhan Vong forces. Hmm yes I see your point it is far better to hold up your morals high and feel good while millions of your people are being killed by an invading xenocidal enemy. The Vong engaged in warfare in their very first encounter with the Republic, what I meant was that if the Empire had fought the war with the Vong it would have been over very quickly with only Vong causalities.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta'] 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 wrong. 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]

[size=1]Yes and when there?s nothing left of the New Republic and it?s people then nobody will know about their morals because only the Vong are left and they believed they were in the right as the implement of their gods. Your above statement is complete nonsense, in a war there is not Good Guys and Bad Guys there are just soldiers and casualties, morality doesn?t enter the equation when you?re fighting for your very existence. I?d like you to consider a phrase Zeta ?Winners write the history?, and it?s impact on modern history.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta']It guards itself by means than any free-thinking man/woman realize is atrocious and therefor gives the Rebellion all new meaning.[/quote]

[size=1]Sorry can you actually explain that vague sentiment, the morals of a people cannot defend them, it?s military [b]can[/b], their weapons [b]can[/b], their morals [b]cannot[/b]. The Jedi guard the New Republic as they always have.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta']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.[/quote]

[size=1]Says who ? The war would have more than likely ended before it started thanks to the Death Star as well as the formidable Imperial Navy. So realistically that point is moot.[/size]

[Brasil]

To add to the points regarding Jedi battling alongside the Old Republic, and since we're looking at EU material and treating it as Canon, I'd like to call attention to Knights of the Old Republic, a Star Wars RPG for Xbox and PC. KOTOR has been hailed as one of the greatest and most well-designed and well-written Star Wars games ever, and just playing it, one would agree. Obviously, glitches experienced during gameplay like crashing and such will mar the experience, but from a pure gameplay/presentation/story standpoint, KOTOR is quite nice. I believe Zeta himself has a copy, heh.

But as you play through KOTOR, there is an incredible amount of discussion about the Jedi's role in the Sith Wars, and how the Republic fleet would have fallen if it were not for the Jedi Council stepping in to aid them. We are constantly bombarded with the grave importance of Bastila's Battle Meditation, and how it can turn the tide of a battle. It is explained numerous times, both from Canderous, Bastila, and Carth, that without the Jedi assistance, the Republic would have fallen to both the Mandalorians and the Sith.

The Jedi were involved in the wars for far more than simple "morale boosters." They were the backbone of the Republic armies; they were the crutch.

[Zeta]

First I would like to point out, the final NJO book has been out for quite awhile, thus allowing me to know the outcome. ;-)


Thank you Siren, I was saying my views on the matter, and wasn't sure if it was your opinion or what.

The no weapons on Alderaan was in the EU. I don't know where exactly, but I read it in the Offical Star Wars Encyclopedia. I will search for the book and give you the exact entry. And to Kane, the planet doesn't allow weapons on it, it doesn't disband Alderaan natives to use weapons outside of the planet. And it wasn't Bail who banned weapons, it was done long before his time.


[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.[/QUOTE]

Not only that but Wookie slaves as well. Does the actions of the prisoners condemn them to death? Does the fact that they are criminals condemn them as well? Some of the criminals in there, have probably done things that the Empire itself has done(murder, stealing...) but is the Empire seen as a criminal? If the fact that they are criminals gives them the right to destroy them, the Empire should destroy itself as well, seeing as how they do the things criminals do as well.

[QUOTE]You say more ?innocent lives? would have been lost, who?s lives, Rebels ? We know that the Rebellion isn't innocent, it is made up of violent traitors and founded by power hungry senators.[/QUOTE]

No I mean the people who are caught up in the war wether they like it or not. Scenario: The Empire gets whiff so to speak of a Rebel base being on some planet. They capture a Rebel, and interrogate him, basically doing the same thing that happened to Leia. The Rebel denies any existance of a base on the planet, knowing full well he is telling the truth. What does the Empire do? Destroys the planet. Innocent lives like those. Yes it isn't meant to destroy lives, but come on. Something like that is used to destroy a planet. Really, think about it, how can you say there wouldn't be innocent lives amongst the so called Rebels being there, when they might not even be there?

I honestly do not see problems with my spelling, unless I am completely blind. I see everything spelled correctly, maybe a few words that have different tenses or certain words to use i n situations, but other than that I don't see it.

The Republic tried to give equal opprotunities to all. They allowed planets within their rule to be represented in the Senate. The Republic made an attempt to give equal rights to all. Rights which everyone wants. Rights which were denied under the rule of the Empire.

Why did they engage on their own free will? You said it yourself, the Sith. Had the Jedi sat back and done nothing, as I seem to be getting from your post, the Republic would have lost much quicker than it had. The Jedi saw the problems that would come with a Sith victory, and for their own sake, as well as for others, they fought on the side of the Republic to the benefit of the greater good. I said the part with the Jedi on a hilltop as a perspective from a Republic soldier. What better way to boost morale if it is low than a Jedi standing there head held high and what not. It was more of a part I would like to see in Episode III if you don't want to take it into context here.

If there is little debate about using superweapons in war, why haven't we just nuked the mountains on the border of Afghanistan(sp) and Pakistan to just knock out bin Laden? The terrorists surely aren't losing this war, they are still around, plotting and waiting, so why not just nuke them? Right and wrong come into play here, morals come into play.

I really can't continue this with you, seeing as how you haven't read the book, so read on if you wish, but it contains spoilers.

[spoiler] Only the Vong are not the only ones left. Throughout the series, you see Vong personel going over to the side of the Republic. Such as Harrar(sp). He see what is going on, and he works for peace between the two peoples. The war ends around Coruscant with the identiy of the real Shimraa(sp) being revealed, and the reasons behind why the Vong cannot be felt in the force. Its called The Unifying Force in case you didn't know, very good book.[/spoiler]

Who says that point is moot between a war with the Empire and Vong? Lets say the Empire did win the Civil War. They would have had no use to build another Death Star, so they have the one. The Vong, a race which has been around for far longer than the Empire, knows how to fight, and would find a weakness. Nom Anor himself said the war would be harder, but not impossible to beat. And that was only if it was at the height of its power, which it sure wouldn't be after a civil war that took time and resources. Had the Death Star not been destroyed early on in the Vong war then, the planets that the Vong had captured would be destroyed, and the Vong would destroy the Empire's planets for the same reasons. It would be a race to see who could destroy the others planets first, leaving nothing behind. Han also says in Destiny's Way that the Empire would build some gigantic superweapon which would only result in its destruction. The only reason the Empire would stand a chance would be the fact that they are basically the Vong, just as ruthless but with machines rather than living organisms.

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Well, Lucas has been quoted calling Star Wars a story of good vs. evil (in his mind spread out over 9 parts). He's also in an interview described the story as one where Darth Vader becomes [i]evil[/i] and is then redeemed by his son. If you look around on Google I'm sure you'll run into these.

Anyway, there's support from the man himelf, Lucas, for Zeta's side of the discussion. Siren and Kane, if you can find statements from Lucas supporting the speculation of his carrying his ideas about Apocalypse Now into SW, or at least something concerning moral relativism in SW, then that'll help your stances out a lot. Otherwise you barely have a leg to stand on due to the fact that the way Lucas says it is, IS the way it is. You can't interpret the story [i]for[/i] him, at least certainly not when discussing the [i]films[/i].

[Zeta]

Ahh yes Siren you are correct, a copy of the game, I do have, and yes it is a great game. :-)

You mentioned that the Jedi fought during the Sith wars, and claimed they are the crutch. As I have said, when there is a Sith involved in some way, of course the Jedi will be involved. How on earth could the Republic defeat an enemy that uses the Force, without their own force users to protect? Now if it were a war between the Republic and another non-force using power, the Jedi would have no reason to fight alongside. What they would do would be try to preserve peace beforehand, as Mace Windu himself said.

What would make much more sense if you said depending on the circumstances the Jedi are the crutch of the Republic. You are making it seem as if they are period, when in actuallity they are not. The fight, when the Sith are involved. And knowing the true ways of the Sith, they fight alongside the Republic.

So, in certain circumstances I agree with you that they Jedi are the crutch, but not in all as you are making them out to be.

[natetron46]

They are often very involved though. The Jedi are among (if not [I]the[/I]) greatest warriors in the republic. It makes sense to have them used for very hig stress combat or for secret missions or for commanding troops. Echu Shen Jon is a perfect example. He was a great leader for the Republic (for awhile), same thing with Yoda as he arrived with the clone army in AOTC.

[Brasil]

[color=black][size=2][quote name='Zeta']Thank you Siren, I was saying my views on the matter, and wasn't sure if it was your opinion or what.[/quote][/size][/color]
[color=black][size=2]Eh?[/size][/color]
[color=black][size=2][QUOTE]The no weapons on Alderaan was in the EU. I don't know where exactly, but I read it in the Offical Star Wars Encyclopedia. I will search for the book and give you the exact entry. And to Kane, the planet doesn't allow weapons on it, it doesn't disband Alderaan natives to use weapons outside of the planet. And it wasn't Bail who banned weapons, it was done long before his time.[/QUOTE][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]But you must keep in mind that both the EU and the Official Star Wars Encyclopedia are based on what is written in the OT, and anything that you read in those two works that seemingly corroborate the idea that Alderaan was weaponless is still based on Leia's comments.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]It's difficult to grasp the concept of an unreliable narrator when you're so attracted to the idea that a character is telling the truth, I know, and I've had to train myself to do this for both Star Wars and The Terminator, and for just about every great literary work that I?ve read, but characters lie.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]They may seem like the most honest, lovable and cuddly protagonists ever (let's not forget just how cute Leia is, after all), but if they're telling us something out of a moment of panic, duress, heated emotion, etc, then anything they say must be taken with a grain of salt, because the moment they begin responding out of passion is the moment that their statements become skewed by desire?tainted by desire, if you will.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Leia does not want to see her homeworld destroyed, and will say [i][font=Tahoma]anything[/font][/i] in an attempt to prevent that, including how it is a peaceful planet with no weapons or threats to The Empire.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]I understand that you want to believe what Leia is saying, because she's portrayed as such an innocent, but appearances can be deceiving.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Ben Kenobi, for example, looks like a sweet old man, but lies to Luke for a significant majority of the OT.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Darth Vader, who looks incredibly evil, tells Luke the truth, the same truth that Ben hid from Luke.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Han Solo is charming, attractive and fairly respectable, as respectable as a smuggler/pirate can be, but do we honestly believe that he was serious about paying Jabba back in triple the amount? He was saying that to save himself, to escape from a dangerous situation, and like an intelligent businessman, Jabba refused, because he knew Solo couldn't be trusted.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Solo is scum, plain and simple. He?s a liar, a cheat, a swindler, a gambler, a pirate, a smuggler, etc. He blasts Greedo before Greedo takes the first shot. Lucas added in a few frames of Greedo?s blaster bolt in the Special Edition, because he felt that it would have cast Han in a less than honorable manner had the scene stayed the same. But Solo still has his blaster under the table to begin with. He doesn?t slide it out in a non-threatening manner when Greedo first approaches him, to signal that he is packing a firearm. He hides it.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Even R2D2 isn't forthcoming with Luke, and he's a synthetic character, with no threatening physical presence.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][QUOTE]Not only that but Wookie slaves as well. Does the actions of the prisoners condemn them to death? Does the fact that they are criminals condemn them as well? Some of the criminals in there, have probably done things that the Empire itself has done(murder, stealing...) but is the Empire seen as a criminal? If the fact that they are criminals gives them the right to destroy them, the Empire should destroy itself as well, seeing as how they do the things criminals do as well.[/QUOTE][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]If one breaks the law, and then threatens the rule of the governing body, one should be penalized for it. Considering, also, that Despayre was in the Outer Rim, and one of the most remote planets in the galaxy, far removed from any other systems, I think the most dangerous and destructive criminals in the galaxy were sent there, so they would not pose a threat to the citizens of The Empire.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][QUOTE]No I mean the people who are caught up in the war wether they like it or not. Scenario: The Empire gets whiff so to speak of a Rebel base being on some planet. They capture a Rebel, and interrogate him, basically doing the same thing that happened to Leia. The Rebel denies any existance of a base on the planet, knowing full well he is telling the truth. What does the Empire do? Destroys the planet. Innocent lives like those. Yes it isn't meant to destroy lives, but come on. Something like that is used to destroy a planet. Really, think about it, how can you say there wouldn't be innocent lives amongst the so called Rebels being there, when they might not even be there?[/QUOTE][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]But this is a "What if?" scenario that you're talking about. The Death Star was built to deter uprisings. The fact that it was only used on two planets, Despayre and Alderaan, one of which held [i][font=Tahoma]convicted[/font][/i] felons and enemies of The Empire, and the other that held a significant Rebel population and very significant threat to The Empire and its citizens, the Death Star is clearly a deterrent, and is not used on arbitrarily selected targets.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]For example, in the final battle near Yavin IV, as the Death Star is approaching the Rebel base on one of the moons, The Empire could have easily just blown up Yavin from a safe distance away, and given that Yavin is primarily gas, would have caused a very, very powerful explosion that would have wiped out Yavin and all of its moons. But yet, they didn?t. Instead, they orbited around the planet in order to destroy the moon and nothing more, leaving Yavin and the other moons intact. If they were so obsessed with random and nondiscriminatory genocide, why didn?t they simply destroy the entire system there?[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Because it appears that the use of the Death Star can be likened to a familiar cliché:[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]"I'm cool if you're cool."[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][QUOTE]Why did they engage on their own free will? You said it yourself, the Sith. Had the Jedi sat back and done nothing, as I seem to be getting from your post, the Republic would have lost much quicker than it had. The Jedi saw the problems that would come with a Sith victory, and for their own sake, as well as for others, they fought on the side of the Republic to the benefit of the greater good. I said the part with the Jedi on a hilltop as a perspective from a Republic soldier. What better way to boost morale if it is low than a Jedi standing there head held high and what not. It was more of a part I would like to see in Episode III if you don't want to take it into context here.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]You mentioned that the Jedi fought during the Sith wars, and claimed they are the crutch. As I have said, when there is a Sith involved in some way, of course the Jedi will be involved. How on earth could the Republic defeat an enemy that uses the Force, without their own force users to protect? Now if it were a war between the Republic and another non-force using power, the Jedi would have no reason to fight alongside. What they would do would be try to preserve peace beforehand, as Mace Windu himself said.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]What would make much more sense if you said depending on the circumstances the Jedi are the crutch of the Republic. You are making it seem as if they are period, when in actuallity they are not. The fight, when the Sith are involved. And knowing the true ways of the Sith, they fight alongside the Republic.[/QUOTE][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]I took the liberty of combining your comments regarding Jedi, their role in war, the Republic, Sith, etc. Hope you don't mind.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]It's not only the Sith War, though. The Jedi were also instrumental in the war with the Mandalorians. Canderous continually emphasizes that if it were not for Revan, a Jedi, the Republic would have been crushed.[/size][/color]


[color=black][size=2]In A New Hope, Leia, Luke and Co. would not have escaped had it not been for Ben, a Jedi.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]This is repeated in Empire Strikes Back, as Han and Leia would have met a rather gruesome end had Luke, a Jedi-in-training, not raced to Cloud City.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Similarly, in Return of the Jedi, Han, Leia, etc would have never had the same chances of escape from Jabba's palace if Luke, a Jedi, was not assisting them.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Perhaps it's just me, but that suggests the Republic, both Old and New, is fairly helpless in conflict without a heavy support from the Jedi.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][quote]If there is little debate about using superweapons in war, why haven't we just nuked the mountains on the border of Afghanistan(sp) and Pakistan to just knock out bin Laden? The terrorists surely aren't losing this war, they are still around, plotting and waiting, so why not just nuke them? Right and wrong come into play here, morals come into play.[/QUOTE][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Because we have not yet understood that in times of war, one cannot be bothered with "morality." Drastic times call for drastic measures, and one must be as efficient as possible in destroying one's enemy if one wishes to have a long victory afterwards.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]I understand this is unsettling to hear, and not to create a heavy political debate here, but America should have used a greater destructive force in dealing with Bin Laden. We may have looked "bad" in front of the U.N. and such, but it is our safety that was compromised, and the safety of our citizens, and thus, we should "pull no punches" when it comes to ensuring that our enemies will not be able to effectively retaliate.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]But that will never happen, because we are so bound to this ethic of "being the bigger man" and "not sinking down to their level."[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]I hope that answers your question.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][quote=Sciros]Well, Lucas has been quoted calling Star Wars a story of good vs. evil (in his mind spread out over 9 parts). He's also in an interview described the story as one where Darth Vader becomes [i]evil[/i] and is then redeemed by his son. If you look around on Google I'm sure you'll run into these.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Anyway, there's support from the man himelf, Lucas, for Zeta's side of the discussion. Siren and Kane, if you can find statements from Lucas supporting the speculation of his carrying his ideas about Apocalypse Now into SW, or at least something concerning moral relativism in SW, then that'll help your stances out a lot. Otherwise you barely have a leg to stand on due to the fact that the way Lucas says it is, IS the way it is. You can't interpret the story [i]for[/i] him, at least certainly not when discussing the [i]films[/i].[/quote][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][url="http://www.next-wave.org/may99/starwars.htm"][u]George Lucas Interview[/u][/url][/size][/color]


[color=black][size=2]Is this the interview you speak of? Here's the quote you reference:[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']It will be about how young Anakin Skywalker became evil and then was redeemed by his son. But it's also about the transformation of how his son came to find the call and then ultimately realize what it was. Because Luke works intuitively through most of the original trilogy until he gets to the very end. And it's only in the last act--when he throws his sword down and says, "I'm not going to fight this"--that he makes a more conscious, rational decision. And he does it at the risk of his life because the Emperor is going to kill him. It's only that way that he is able to redeem his father. It's not as apparent in the earlier movies, but when you see the next trilogy, then you see the issue is, How do we get Darth Vader back? How do we get him back to that little boy that he was in the first movie, that good person who loved and was generous and kind? Who had a good heart.[/quote][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Now, all of this sounds well and good when taken purely out of context, out of the interview itself. The greater intent of Lucas as he created Star Wars, as he explains earlier in the interview, is getting the audience to ask questions and learn about themselves:[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']When I wrote the first Star Wars, I had to come up with a whole cosmology: What do people believe in? I had to do something that was relevant, something that imitated a belief system that has been around for thousands of years, and that most people on the planet, one way or another, have some kind of connection to. I didn't want to invent a religion. I wanted to try to explain in a different way the religions that have already existed. I wanted to express it all.[/quote][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']It's designed primarily to make young people think about the mystery. Not to say, "Here's the answer." It's to say, "Think about this for a second. Is there a God? What does God look like? What does God sound like? What does God feel like? How do we relate to God?" Just getting young people to think at that level is what I've been trying to do in the films. What eventual manifestation that takes place in terms of how they describe their God, what form their faith takes, is not the point of the movie.[/quote][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']Myths tell us these old stories in a way that doesn't threaten us. They're in an imaginary land where you can be safe. But they deal with real truths that need to be told. Sometimes the truths are so painful that stories are the only way you can get through to them psychologically.[/quote][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]It's not a simple Good vs Evil story. It's a myth written to prompt us to ask questions about ourselves, humanity, religion, morality, war, perception, etc. To simply say, "Oh, Star Wars is just about the evil Empire hunting down the good-natured Rebellion" is ultimately disregarding Lucas' larger intent, which is to provide us with a motivation to further examine ourselves and why we view ourselves the way we do, which heavily relates to political and social perception that is so prevalent during the Vietnam War, which again ties into the points regarding Lucas' intent of a critical look at the war in his vision for Apocalypse Now, his vision that would have encouraged Americans to question how they view both the Viet Cong and themselves, to question ?a certain point of view.?[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Star Wars' relevance to the Vietnam War isn't simply my exclusive interpretation, as well: [url="http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/agordon/starwars.htm"]Star Wars and Vietnam War[/url]. I'd call attention to the following passage there:[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2][quote name='Star Wars and Vietnam]Each generation must either create its own myths and its own heroes or regenerate those of the past. [b][font=Tahoma]Star Wars was released in a period when the heroes had been cast down through such national catastrophes as Vietnam and Watergate, when the lines between good and evil became cloudy[/font][/b], and when sexual identities were beginning to be redefined by the Women's Movement. Meanwhile, Americans found themselves living inside a kind of Death Star, a machine world drained of spiritual values, a world in which the individual felt impotent and alien. [b][font=Tahoma]In the late 1970s, Americans desperately needed a renewal of faith in themselves as good guys on the world scene[/font][/b'], as men and women, as human beings who count, and so returned temporarily to the simpler patterns of the past. Old superheroes like Superman were revived--and so were old-fashioned genre films like Rocky and Star Wars.[/quote][/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]If Americans were sympathizing with the Rebellion, then where was their desire to fight against an oppressive governing body coming from? Whom did they view as The Empire? The American government, perhaps? The same government whose National Guard fired upon and killed demonstrators? The same government whose President (Nixon) was one of the most sneaky and underhanded presidents the country has ever had? The same government whose President (Nixon) depended on operating behind closed-doors, manipulation, intimidation, extortion, conspiracy, etc? Forgive me for saying so, but The Empire?s actions seem all too similar to Nixon?s behaviors, in addition to the American government and National Guard?s reactions to protestors, for the parallels to be purely coincidental.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]Yes, these actions and attitudes can be applied to virtually any period in history, but Star Wars was released in 1977. It was being developed as early as 1972. The Vietnam War and its effect on society, government, and national opinion were still very prominent issues throughout the 70s, and Watergate did nothing but aggravate those issues.[/size][/color]

[color=black][size=2]There have been no explicit statements regarding this from Lucas, true, but there is enough evidence here to begin connecting the dots. Historicity and Ideology are very influential on the art of the time period. The ?Art for art?s sake? that Sciros mentioned is quite possibly the best example of that.[/size][/color]

[size=2]The Decadents were rebelling against the oppressive Victorians because Oscar Wilde and his fellows believed there was more to art than condemning the viewer. Their art is directly related to and influenced by their current political and social climate in 1890s England, and this is precisely what is happening with Lucas and Star Wars in the 70s: art influenced by the current political and social climate. Star Wars was far from written in the vacuum of space (pardon the bad pun).[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]EDIT: I'd like to talk a bit more about a particular excerpt from the Interview. I went to Save Changes and OB failed, so this is a re-write from memory:[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2][quote name='Lucas Interview']Myths tell us these old stories in a way that doesn't threaten us. They're in an imaginary land where you can be safe. But they deal with real truths that need to be told. Sometimes the truths are so painful that stories are the only way you can get through to them psychologically.[/quote][/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]In the 70s, Americans wanted to know that they were still the good guys. They wanted re-assurance that they were fighting the "good fight." But when we examine what America's motivations were for getting involved in Vietnam, we see that only a small fraction of it was genuine concern for the lives of the South Vietnamese. The primary reason, it seems, that America entered Vietnam was to prevent the spread of Communism, which we viewed as a threat to our country and our way of life.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]To put it bluntly, we were essentially acting out of our own best interests, and this is a rather ugly truth.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Had Lucas expressed that as overtly as Coppola did in Apocalypse Now, he would have found himself under the same heavy scrutiny and criticisms that targeted Coppola. So, what does Lucas do? He writes a Science-fiction fantasy/adventure, set in "A galaxy far, far away," that seems to bear absolutely no resemblance to the current issues he sees. This is the story he speaks of to explore the ugly truth that he speaks of.[/size]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Star Wars is an allegory. "A galaxy far, far away" is Vietnam.[/size]

[Zeta]

THe thank you was thanks for providing where you got your opinions of the Vietnam/Star Wars parallel.

Now, I am not going to get into the whole thing with the Lucas interview and what not, because that is not what I am talking about. I can see where you are coming from, especially after reading all that, so I agree with you. But the things I am talking about are the things Kane is saying.


In an earlier post, Kane says that the Empire and Rebellion are both guilty of genocide. But what you must look at rather than the here and now is the whole picture. The Empire struck the first blow, the Empire commited the first act of genocide, because they are threatened as you yourself said. The Empire did it because they could do it, and decided to do it. Now why did the Rebellion commit genocide, on a much small scale mind you. The Rebellion never once willingy commited an act of genocide against the Empire. They did it because they had to. I agree with your views of the Death Star being built to strike fear and what not into the Rebellion. But it was also created for destruction as I have said. How many rebel bases would have been around the galaxy at this time? There were probably Rebel cells all over the galaxy, and the destruction of planets, would surely not diminish the views of the Rebellion, it would only increase their reasons to rebel. Which is exactly what happened.EDIT: In any other situation they would have sent all things available, but in this, their resolve was so great that they attacked with such a small force. THey sent a motley crew of star fighters to take it out, to show that things like that will only cause more death than necessary and that they cannot be scared into defeat. Had the Death Star done its so called "job" of inciting terror and causing "traitors" to back down, the Rebellion wouldn't have attacked it.

The first Death Star didn't cause the Rebels to back down, so why build a second one? If they have shown that things like that won't scare them why bother? It has been shown that weapons of mass destruction doesn't scare them. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, lets say the first one was built [i]just[/i] to incite fear among the Rebellion. With it being destroyed, the Empire has nothing left. Then it is safe to assume, that the second one would have been used for the destruction of the Rebellion. Which is shown being used in battle, continuously, rather than just once or twice to incite fear as you say they were meant for. If they first one was for the purpose of inciting fear, which failed, then the second one was made for the destruction phase, which also failed. But I don't buy the being made to incite fear, I still believe it was meant for destruction purposes period. Nothing that is said can be done to deter me from that. A superlaser powerful enough to destroy a planet, was not meant for a one time use.

Siren: Your point of the Empire not blowing up Yavin itself gives me a little more respect for the Empire. But all I really see is a commander who can realize what would happen, were he to destroy such a large gas planet in the whole scheme of things. Space around the area could be disturbed for years. But also, they only have need to destroy places that have the Rebels on it. No need to destroy an entire system if they can do it for just one planet and recieve the same result. I do give them credit for thinking there though, but Yavin IV is also a planet with no civilization, or advanced civilization anywasy(can't remember if there was a native population of Masassi still around? or if they were long gone?) When I say their acts of genocide, I mean on the planets they are destroying itself, the one planet.When it comes to the planet itself, is the genocide I am talking about, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. THe fact that they would destroy planets for a few(again when I say few, I mean quite a lot compared to the whole population) and not think twice of those who may be loyal to the Empire or plain ignorant of the outside world.


If I remember correctly, the Jedi council [i]wanted[/i] to stay out of the war, but Revan and Malak went anyways. Nevermind that the Jedi did fight at this point, but keep in mind they were NOT going to fight at all at that point in time. Yes the Republic would have been crushed, but they Republic was not [i]using[/i] them as their crutch. It was the actions of a few that went and fought, against the wishes of the whole, they didn't want to be a crutch, but ended up being one so to speak if you are using just the fact that Reven and Malak were Jedi and fighting. THe actions of a few, don't reflect the whole in my mind. The Jedi were not a crutch at this point in time, the only ones who could be considered a crutch would be Malak and Revan, they were the ones fighting, not the Jedi themselves as a whole.

And as I have all ready said, when it comes to the Sith fighting in some way or another, then you can consider them being a crutch in a way. The only way to beat a Sith, is to use a Jedi. Pure and simple. That is why Luke was fighting, the enemies were in actuallity the Sith, and he was the only Jedi who could fight. In certain situations the Jedi are the crutch so to speak, but they are not the crutch period. How many battles were won against the Vong before the Jedi figured out how to "sense" them in a way, and figure out how to fight. The first battle on the outer rim was won without the Jedi powers even though they were present. I'll get back to you on others, its been over a year since i have read the books, and am due for another time reading them soon in my mind. How many battles against the Imperial Remnant were won without the help of Jedi? Plenty of Rouge Squadron missions until Jedi began to file into their ranks. In certain circumstance I agree with you two completely, but then in some I do not agree.


Oh , even if they are convicted criminals, does their actions give the Empire the right to destroy the entire planet? Innocents may also have been there such as the wookie slaves. Had they criminals been that big of a threat, they wouldn't have been allowed to live i n the first place.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Damn when OB went down yesterday I'd this post just finished, Zeta it deals with most of the points you put to me in your second/third last post.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']First I would like to point out, the final NJO book has been out for quite awhile, thus allowing me to know the outcome. ;-)[/quote]

[SIZE=1]My apologies I wasn't aware that the book was out yet, though in saying that I must now go out and purchase the book.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']The no weapons on Alderaan was in the EU. I don't know where exactly, but I read it in the Official Star Wars Encyclopaedia. I will search for the book and give you the exact entry. And to Kane, the planet doesn't allow weapons on it, it doesn't disband Alderaan natives to use weapons outside of the planet. And it wasn't Bail who banned weapons, it was done long before his time.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I believe that "[I]No Weapons[/I]" bit comes from the EU section of Alderaan in the StarWars.com Database. Actually we don't know for sure whether they do allow weapons on Alderaan or not because there are conflicting "facts" on both sides of the argument. And it was actually Bail who banned weapons on Alderaan shortly after the outbreak of the Clone Wars, he believed that by disarming his people it would prevent Alderaan from being drawn into the Wars. [/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']Not only that but Wookie slaves as well. Does the actions of the prisoners condemn them to death? Does the fact that they are criminals condemn them as well? Some of the criminals in there, have probably done things that the Empire itself has done(murder, stealing...) but is the Empire seen as a criminal? If the fact that they are criminals gives them the right to destroy them, the Empire should destroy itself as well, seeing as how they do the things criminals do as well.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]That would of course depend on the severity of their crimes wouldn't it, in America people face the Death Penalty for certain crimes, an act considered by many people to be barbaric. Siren has said that they were the dregs of the Galaxy and I believe him, as such their destruction is no real loss, they served their purpose in constructing the Death Star and once their use was depleted they were terminated. The Wookies were unfortunate and for their deaths I would consider it to be wrong. The Empire has committed crimes yes, but how often to governments face prosecutions for their actions ?[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']No I mean the people who are caught up in the war whether they like it or not. Scenario: The Empire gets whiff so to speak of a Rebel base being on some planet. They capture a Rebel, and interrogate him, basically doing the same thing that happened to Leia. The Rebel denies any existence of a base on the planet, knowing full well he is telling the truth. What does the Empire do? Destroys the planet. Innocent lives like those. Yes it isn't meant to destroy lives, but come on. Something like that is used to destroy a planet. Really, think about it, how can you say there wouldn't be innocent lives amongst the so called Rebels being there, when they might not even be there?[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Now you're taking things a little too far, I don't believe The Empire would waste resources destroying every planet where they heard there's a Rebel Base. Tarkin was quite sure there [b]was[/b] a Rebel base on Alderaan and destroyed the planet as both a message to the Rebellion and to the Galaxy in general. I doubt the Empire is in the habit of destroying planets just because some Rebel said so under interrogation, more than likely they'd check out the planet first and then use the Death Star.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']I honestly do not see problems with my spelling, unless I am completely blind. I see everything spelled correctly, maybe a few words that have different tenses or certain words to use i n situations, but other than that I don't see it.[/quote]

[size=1]Look at the way you have "[I]in[/I]" spelled just before the word situations and you will have your proof. The reason you can't see it in my quotes is because I corrected the mistakes when I put them through Spell Check.[/size]

[quote name='Zeta']The Republic tried to give equal opportunities to all. They allowed planets within their rule to be represented in the Senate. The Republic made an attempt to give equal rights to all. Rights which everyone wants. Rights which were denied under the rule of the Empire.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I would agree with your use of the words "[I]try[/I]" and "[I]an attempt[/I]" because realistically that's as about as far as they got. The Old Republic was so plagued by corruption that it took nothing short of a miracle for the Senate to do something good if it went against the interest of groups like the Trade Federation and the Commerce Guild. Yes The Empire denied most rights to non-humans unless they were exceptional in their class (Grand Admiral Thrawn for example), however they were at least capable of getting things done for the benefit of their people.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']Why did they engage on their own free will? You said it yourself, the Sith. Had the Jedi sat back and done nothing, as I seem to be getting from your post, the Republic would have lost much quicker than it had. The Jedi saw the problems that would come with a Sith victory, and for their own sake, as well as for others, they fought on the side of the Republic to the benefit of the greater good. I said the part with the Jedi on a hilltop as a perspective from a Republic soldier. What better way to boost morale if it is low than a Jedi standing there head held high and what not. It was more of a part I would like to see in Episode III if you don't want to take it into context here.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Fair enough, though the interesting part is the whole war for the Sith's influence even though the Jedi are unaware of it at that time. As for the point about the Jedi on the hilltop I had no idea what you were referring to but now that you've cleared it up I'd again point out that the Clones are bred to fear nothing, to take orders and die fighting if necessary.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']If there is little debate about using superweapons in war, why haven't we just nuked the mountains on the border of Afghanistan(sp) and Pakistan to just knock out bin Laden? The terrorists surely aren't losing this war, they are still around, plotting and waiting, so why not just nuke them? Right and wrong come into play here, morals come into play.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Because in the context of the point I made America would have to be under continual attack and loosing hundreds of thousands of people and facing a resounding defeat at the hands of Al-Qaeda. The point I made was that there is little time to debate the morals of a weapon if it is your only likely chance of not being annihilated by forces who see your demise as a divine task from their gods.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']Who says that point is moot between a war with the Empire and Vong? Lets say the Empire did win the Civil War. They would have had no use to build another Death Star, so they have the one. The Vong, a race which has been around for far longer than the Empire, knows how to fight, and would find a weakness. Nom Anor himself said the war would be harder, but not impossible to beat. And that was only if it was at the height of its power, which it sure wouldn't be after a civil war that took time and resources. Had the Death Star not been destroyed early on in the Vong war then, the planets that the Vong had captured would be destroyed, and the Vong would destroy the Empire's planets for the same reasons. It would be a race to see who could destroy the others planets first, leaving nothing behind. Han also says in Destiny's Way that the Empire would build some gigantic superweapon which would only result in its destruction. The only reason the Empire would stand a chance would be the fact that they are basically the Vong, just as ruthless but with machines rather than living organisms.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]I don't believe the Vong would have had a chance to do any serious damage against The Empire because their initial encounter would have been so swift and brutal on the side of the Empire I doubt many Vong forces would have had a chance to try and destroy the Death Star. I believe Han called the gigantic weapon "[I]The Nostril of Palpatine[/I]" and said that "[I]some hotshot Vong pilot[/I]" would blow it up, or something along those lines.[/SIZE]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']THe thank you was thanks for providing where you got your opinions of the Vietnam/Star Wars parallel.[/quote]
Ah. Jolly good then.

[QUOTE]Now, I am not going to get into the whole thing with the Lucas interview and what not, because that is not what I am talking about. I can see where you are coming from, especially after reading all that, so I agree with you. But the things I am talking about are the things Kane is saying.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad I was able to prove my point regarding the Vietnam. Thank you.

[QUOTE]In an earlier post, Kane says that the Empire and Rebellion are both guilty of genocide. But what you must look at rather than the here and now is the whole picture. The Empire struck the first blow, the Empire commited the first act of genocide, because they are threatened as you yourself said. The Empire did it because they could do it, and decided to do it. Now why did the Rebellion commit genocide, on a much small scale mind you. The Rebellion never once willingy commited an act of genocide against the Empire. They did it because they had to. I agree with your views of the Death Star being built to strike fear and what not into the Rebellion. But it was also created for destruction as I have said. How many rebel bases would have been around the galaxy at this time? There were probably Rebel cells all over the galaxy, and the destruction of planets, would surely not diminish the views of the Rebellion, it would only increase their reasons to rebel. Which is exactly what happened.EDIT: In any other situation they would have sent all things available, but in this, their resolve was so great that they attacked with such a small force. THey sent a motley crew of star fighters to take it out, to show that things like that will only cause more death than necessary and that they cannot be scared into defeat. Had the Death Star done its so called "job" of inciting terror and causing "traitors" to back down, the Rebellion wouldn't have attacked it.

The first Death Star didn't cause the Rebels to back down, so why build a second one? If they have shown that things like that won't scare them why bother? It has been shown that weapons of mass destruction doesn't scare them. Giving you the benefit of the doubt here, lets say the first one was built [i]just[/i] to incite fear among the Rebellion. With it being destroyed, the Empire has nothing left. Then it is safe to assume, that the second one would have been used for the destruction of the Rebellion. Which is shown being used in battle, continuously, rather than just once or twice to incite fear as you say they were meant for. If they first one was for the purpose of inciting fear, which failed, then the second one was made for the destruction phase, which also failed. But I don't buy the being made to incite fear, I still believe it was meant for destruction purposes period. Nothing that is said can be done to deter me from that. A superlaser powerful enough to destroy a planet, was not meant for a one time use.

Siren: Your point of the Empire not blowing up Yavin itself gives me a little more respect for the Empire. But all I really see is a commander who can realize what would happen, were he to destroy such a large gas planet in the whole scheme of things. Space around the area could be disturbed for years. But also, they only have need to destroy places that have the Rebels on it. No need to destroy an entire system if they can do it for just one planet and recieve the same result. I do give them credit for thinking there though, but Yavin IV is also a planet with no civilization, or advanced civilization anywasy(can't remember if there was a native population of Masassi still around? or if they were long gone?) When I say their acts of genocide, I mean on the planets they are destroying itself, the one planet.When it comes to the planet itself, is the genocide I am talking about, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. THe fact that they would destroy planets for a few(again when I say few, I mean quite a lot compared to the whole population) and not think twice of those who may be loyal to the Empire or plain ignorant of the outside world.[/QUOTE]
Zeta, I'm going to reply fully later, as I'm at work right now and must make this incredibly brief, but for argument's sake, I'll agree with you that the majority of Alderaan's population were innocent civilians, and only a very small percentage of Alderaan's governing body were Rebel sympathizers. I still think it's safe to say that there was a Rebel base of some type on Alderaan, though.

But, if The Empire destroys Alderaan, killing millions of innocent civilians to kill important members of the Rebel Alliance, because a handful of Alderaan's inhabitants were high-ranking Rebel officials who had made Alderaan a base of operations, amid millions of innocent civilians, is not the [i]Rebellion's[/i] fault that those millions of innocent civilians were killed?

The Rebels are essentially [i]hiding[/i], then, amid innocents, hoping that The Empire will not destroy them, out of fear of killing those civilians.

This is no different than tactics used by Al Qaida, certain Iraqi militants, and on various occasions, Palestinian militants.

The Rebellion is the cause of those innocent casualties, because they refused to appropriately weigh the lives of the innocents in their cause. Think of it as Al Qaida or Hamas making a base out of a church or mosque, or even a school or hospital. If innocents are killed, it is their fault for physically implicating those innocents.

We might say that The Empire was merely punishing the Rebellion for acting out of cowardice.

[Zeta]

Yes, do go buy it. I am in fact reading it again right now. Does an accidental space between an i and n really confuse one so? It isn't that major of a mistake, and anyone can read the post through without having to think of what it is, just by the context of the sentence.

Well it seems that we are both wrong with the Alderaan no weapons policy. My apologies. Though you were right about who banned them, we both had the times wrong. It was after the Clone Wars, not shortly after the outbreak of war. Again my apologies.

[QUOTE]The Empire has committed crimes yes, but how often to governments face prosecutions for their actions ?[/QUOTE]

In my mind the Rebellion is doing just that, just not in such a literal sense. They are making the Empire atrocities known to the galaxy, and are rising up to "bring them to justice" by creating a new government could prosecute had the Empire completely fallen right away. But, seeing as how the Empire didn't surrender, leaders and such could not be put on trial. Sort of like the Nurenburg(sp) trials after WWII. Or the fact that the Rebellion is occuring and is overthrowing a government for their actions is enough of a justice against them.


[QUOTE]Now you're taking things a little too far, I don't believe The Empire would waste resources destroying every planet where they heard there's a Rebel Base. Tarkin was quite sure there was a Rebel base on Alderaan and destroyed the planet as both a message to the Rebellion and to the Galaxy in general.[/QUOTE]

Well since this whole part is all hypothetical (you saying they won't destroy other planets, and with me saying they will) I will throw out another hypothetical situation. THis whole area is all our opinions I guess, but just to repeat, why on earth would they spend some much time and money to build something meant to destroy a moon/planet for a one time use. The logic of this still evades me. Anyways, Tarkin seems like the kind of dude who would take any chance to gain power. From the Unofficial Encyclopedia at theforce.net [b]However, Tarkin also had a hidden objective in creating the Death Star. Once the battle station was operational, he'd hoped to use it against Palpatine, in an attempt to take control of the galaxy for himself. [/b] What better way to go about it than destroying planets with supposed Rebels on it, or hell, start another war with him trying to take the throne of the Empire. They would have wasted more resources to build the damn thing for a one time use, rather than destroying planets with supposed Rebel bases. So until I can be convince otherwise, it was not meant for a one time use. Something that big and with so much time spent on it, would naturally be used more than once.

In regards to the Clone Army. I am sure that they make up a LARGE part of the Republics army, but I also believe that non-clone troopers besides Jedi are involved. Giving the non-clone troopers the morale booster I was talking about. This could be put into past war conflicts as well, specially the Sith War. Since many, many more regular soldiers were fighting here, the Jedi may have been the boost they needed against the Sith.

[QUOTE]The point I made was that there is little time to debate the morals of a weapon if it is your only likely chance of not being annihilated by forces who see your demise as a divine task from their gods.[/QUOTE]

We could say that that is in effect exactly what is going on. The terrorists show no sign of giving up, and are hoping for the demise of our nation period. And in my mind, we show no signs of being closer to the goal of stopping terrorism than we were at the time of 9/11. Though that is just me. But yet we still don't use nukes. Just to add my views on the matter, I agree with Bush and what he is trying to do. Sooner or later something like this would have to be done, rather be sooner than later. Just had to add that. ^_^;;

[QUOTE]I don't believe the Vong would have had a chance to do any serious damage against The Empire because their initial encounter would have been so swift and brutal on the side of the Empire I doubt many Vong forces would have had a chance to try and destroy the Death Star.[/QUOTE]

I really don't know about that. Remember, there was a small force of Vong that entered and was destroyed, not the full fledged invasion yet to be seen. All throughout the movies it is seen that the Empire is cocky. Tarkin believing they would win the war with the Death Star after destroying a planet that offered no resistence, never having fought in a real battle with it yet. Shown again with the Emperor willingly allowing the Rebels to find the second DS, ultimately leading to his death and the dispersion of the Imperial fleet. I believe it is exactly as Han said. The Empire would defeat the first force, and noticing the utter destruction, would leave a motley fleet there to just guard the place due to their thinking they have won. But then the whole invasion force comes in. THat is where Han's "hot shot pilot" would come in and destroys the DS.



EDIT: To Sirens post

Even though they are hiding, wouldn't the Empire want to weigh the outcomes of destroying the planet? A Rebel base in hiding....they destroy the whole planet with the innocents. Of course some would be mad at the Rebellion, but when they would look at the whole picture, they would see what the Empire actually is. It was the Empire that destroyed the planet ultimately, not the Rebellion itself. [i]Which[/i] is EXACTLY why the DS was destroyed. All revolts are done in hiding. It is a known fact. The Empire came to power, through the hiding of Palpatine and his true motives. The Empire is basically a revolution against the Old Republic, and the Rebellion one against the Empire. The point I am trying to make with Kane and you I guess, is that the Rebellion would never willingly destroy a planet for those of a few. The Rebellion looked over the consequences of their actions, and based their actions on them, as did the New Republic in the NJO. Yes as Kane said, both sides are quiltyof genocide, but you have to look at the circumstances on why it was done. The Rebellion was fighting to protect themselves, as well as others who get ino the way of a war they may not be even aware about. If throughout my time here I have been giving both of you a misconstrued(is that even a word? lol) of what I was geting at I am sorry.

I do not agree wtih Kane's views about why things are done. He has been making it seem that the Rebellion is just as bad as the Empire. When in fact, the things the Rebellion are doing, are in retaliation to things done upon them and others.

If you will read through the countless sources for Star Wars, you will see the atrocites the Empire itself has committed, and see that the Rebellion has done far fewer against the Empire. The Outbound Flight project, a project sent to discover the Universe. Destroyed by Thrawn on Palpatines order, in secret mind you just like the Rebellion if you look at it in that way. Pre-Empire of course, but exactly what an Emperor like Palpatine would do, all ready showing his evil intentions before his goal is even realized.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta]Even though they are hiding, wouldn't the Empire want to weigh the outcomes of destroying the planet? A Rebel base in hiding....they destroy the whole planet with the innocents. Of course some would be mad at the Rebellion, but when they would look at the whole picture, they would see what the Empire actually is. It was the Empire that destroyed the planet ultimately, not the Rebellion itself. [i]Which[/i'] is EXACTLY why the DS was destroyed. All revolts are done in hiding. It is a known fact.[/quote]
So, then, are you justifying the actions of Hamas?

[QUOTE]The Empire came to power, through the hiding of Palpatine and his true motives. The Empire is basically a revolution against the Old Republic, and the Rebellion one against the Empire.[/QUOTE]
Are you legitimizing Palpatine and The Empire then? Also, if The Empire [i]knows[/i] they have bases on particular planets (Alderaan, for example), then the Rebellion's attempt at "slipping in under the radar" has utterly failed, and again, they pose more of a threat to the civilians than The Empire does, simply because they are endangering the lives of those civilians, civilians whom The Empire would not have even considered destroying, as there were no ties to the Rebellion at all before the Rebellion began utilizing Alderaan as a primary base of operations.

[QUOTE]The point I am trying to make with Kane and you I guess, is that the Rebellion would never willingly destroy a planet for those of a few.[/QUOTE]
Are you so sure? It is their fault that Alderaan was destroyed. If they had chosen a remote planet such as Hoth, like they did in Empire Strikes Back, then many, many people would still be alive. I think they certainly willingly destroy a planet for the motivations of the few. The minute they established Alderaan as a primary Rebellion launchpoint is the minute they doomed Alderaan, because clearly, The Empire will pursue the Rebellion, and destroy them when at all possible.

[QUOTE]The Rebellion looked over the consequences of their actions, and based their actions on them, as did the New Republic in the NJO.[/QUOTE]
Only once do I see the Rebellion actually consider the lives of those around them, and consider the consequences of their actions in how those consequences affect the innocent civilians that the Rebellion consistently puts in harm's way:

[quote name='Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi']I shouldn't have come here...I'm endangering the mission.[/quote]
Nowhere else in the Original Trilogy does any member of the Rebellion even for a minute consider that they are putting millions of lives in danger because they are choosing to inhabit densely populated planets.

[QUOTE]Yes as Kane said, both sides are quiltyof genocide, but you have to look at the circumstances on why it was done. The Rebellion was fighting to protect themselves, as well as others who get ino the way of a war they may not be even aware about. If throughout my time here I have been giving both of you a misconstrued(is that even a word? lol) of what I was geting at I am sorry.[/QUOTE]
The Rebellion is fighting to protect themselves and no-one else. They are leaving The Empire no choice at all but to destroy innocent civilians, because the well-known Rebellion--and it is well-known.

We are told this in the first 20 minutes of A New Hope "Might garner support for the Rebellion in the Senate." The Senate clearly knows that Leia is a member of the Rebellion; The Empire clearly knows. The Rebellion and Leia's ties to it are no big secret ("Don't act so surprised, your Highness. You weren't on any mercy mission this time.").

In fact, because The Empire does not needlessly kill innocent civilians, only doing so when the Rebellion refuses to "come out and fight," we could say that The Empire is more concerned with the safety of innocent civilians than the Rebellion.

Actions do speak louder than words, after all, and as it stands now, the Rebellion says they're fighting for the safety of all, but in reality, are endangering more lives than they're fighting to protect, while The Empire is only targeting the Rebellion, and not killing innocents when killing innocents can be avoided.

[QUOTE]I do not agree wtih Kane's views about why things are done. He has been making it seem that the Rebellion is just as bad as the Empire. When in fact, the things the Rebellion are doing, are in retaliation to things done upon them and others.[/QUOTE]
In some major and obvious ways (putting civilians in harm's way, for example), the Rebellion is far worse than The Empire.

[quote]If you will read through the countless sources for Star Wars, you will see the atrocites the Empire itself has committed, and see that the Rebellion has done far fewer against the Empire. The Outbound Flight project, a project sent to discover the Universe. Destroyed by Thrawn on Palpatines order, in secret mind you just like the Rebellion if you look at it in that way. Pre-Empire of course, but exactly what an Emperor like Palpatine would do, all ready showing his evil intentions before his goal is even realized.[/QUOTE]
And again, this is EU, which holds little bearing in a discussion where the Original Trilogy is slowly being deconstructed and thus the EU becomes weaker and weaker as its foundation for its ideas, the Original Trilogy, becomes increasingly questionable.

[Zeta]

I can't comment on the Hamas, because honestly, I do not have a good bearing on what is going on there. If you could enlighten me, I would gladly put my voice in. >_<

It is a known fact that the Empire came to be through the hidden plans of Palpatine. Forgot who said that the Rebellion is evil because of its dealing with operations and similar things in the shadows, hiding basically. But if that causes the Rebellion to be evil, then it only shows that the Empire is evil too since it came about in the same way as the Rebellion, which is what I have been saying.

Did the Empire try all they could to get the Rebels to show their face on Alderaan? If they are indeed concerned about the innocents, would they not have tried to give them a chance to surrender? No such chance was given.

In a previous post, Kane I think it was, said that the DS was built for the sole purpose of inciting fear into the Rebellion, and into any other type of revolt I am assuming. Had it not been destroyed, and with the Rebellion still going, only more planets would become known to house the Rebels. Which would then lead to the use of the DS again, which is more than a one time use of it. For other uprisings with no bearing on the Rebels themselves, the DS would be brought in, and used if need be. No, the DS was made for more than a one time use, one clearly obvious reason being that the Rebellion would not die with the destruction of Alderaan, thus leading to more bases having to be uncovered and destroyed.


I bring in the EU, because Kane and others brought in the EU. So I just assumed it is all right to use for reference. If using the EU is still allowed, here is quite a large action where the Republic does in fact think of the civilians. THe Vong bio-agent, capable of defeating an enemy that has been basically kick their butts since day one. I again ask, do they use it as a quick and easy way to defeat the Vong? No they do not. One major worry among the leaders was the overall effect on the planets ecosystem, what types of problems would arise if it came in contact with humans.

[QUOTE]In some major and obvious ways (putting civilians in harm's way, for example), the Rebellion is far worse than The Empire.[/QUOTE]

But again, you have to look at the whole picture. The Rebellion is there to end the rule of the Empire, because of the way the people themselves are treated. Without representation in the Senate quite a lot of people get angry. Kane says that they Empire acts for their people, which is only Imperial humans. What about the other species, humans are probably outnumbered by the sheer amount of alien species in the galaxy, and yet they have no representation. They are basically seen as not worthwhile in any sense. How does that say the Empire is not evil in a way. A racist ruling body that won't hesitate to destroy a planet for the sake of a "few." Again realize, that the Empire didn't give a chance for the Rebels to come out. Hell, going by the movies, there wasn't even a radio transmission demanding the Rebels come out or else. The Empire didn't try to reduce innocent deaths, had they cared about it as you said, they would have given an ultimatum(sp) for them to give up or else. If they didn't come out, then I can see where they may have cared about innocent lives but had no other choice, but they didn't. In no way is that trying to protect the innocent.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Zeta']I can't comment on the Hamas, because honestly, I do not have a good bearing on what is going on there. If you could enlighten me, I would gladly put my voice in. >_<[/quote]
Certainly. I simply ran a search in Google: [url=http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/hamas.htm][u]Hamas[/u][/url].

[quote=Hamas link][b]Description[/b]
Formed in late 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Various HAMAS elements have used both violent and political means? including terrorism?to pursue the goal of establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in Israel. Loosely structured, with some elements working clandestinely and others openly through mosques and social service institutions to recruit members, raise money, organize activities, and distribute propaganda. HAMAS?s strength is concentrated in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. First designated in October 1997.

[b]Activities[/b]
HAMAS terrorists, especially those in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, have conducted many attacks?including large-scale suicide bombings?against Israeli civilian and military targets. HAMAS maintained the pace of its operational activity during 2002-03, claiming numerous attacks against Israeli interests. HAMAS has not yet directly targeted US interests, although the group makes little or no effort to avoid targets frequented by foreigners. HAMAS continues to confine its attacks to Israel and the territories.

[b]Strength[/b]
Unknown number of official members; tens of thousands of supporters and sympathizers.

[b]Location/Area of Operation[/b]
HAMAS currently limits its terrorist operations to Israeli military and civilian targets in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Israel. The group?s leadership is dispersed throughout the Gaza Strip and West Bank, with a few senior leaders residing in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Gulf States.

[b]External Aid[/b]
Receives some funding from Iran but primarily relies on donations from Palestinian expatriates around the world and private benefactors, particularly in Western Europe, North America, and the Persian Gulf region.[/quote]
This comes from just the second link in the Google search for "Hamas." If you read through the search results, you'll see that "Hamas" and "Terrorist" go hand-in-hand, and if you run a few searches on CNN.com, you'll probably find reports of Hamas members hiding in hospitals and schools and so on. Hamas endangers everyone by doing this. It automatically implicates innocent lives by creating bases in innocent-looking buildings, in the hope that Israel, the US, etc, don't have the gall to go bomb the hospital.

Basically, Hamas tries to exploit locations that should be off-limits in war to both attackers and defenders, and you can see that the Rebellion clearly behaves like Hamas, in that they are exploiting the "Innocent" location of Alderaan, in the hope that The Empire will resist attacking them simply because they're living in a "hospital" in Star Wars.

[QUOTE]It is a known fact that the Empire came to be through the hidden plans of Palpatine. Forgot who said that the Rebellion is evil because of its dealing with operations and similar things in the shadows, hiding basically. But if that causes the Rebellion to be evil, then it only shows that the Empire is evil too since it came about in the same way as the Rebellion, which is what I have been saying.[/QUOTE]
You do understand what you're proposing here? If we agree to say that The Empire is evil, you agree to say that the Rebellion is evil, as well, and that the Rebels are not as squeaky clean as you once thought, and what was previously thought to be a clearly drawn line between Good and Evil in Star Wars is in fact totally blurred. Consider it for a moment before you give us your final answer.

[QUOTE]Did the Empire try all they could to get the Rebels to show their face on Alderaan? If they are indeed concerned about the innocents, would they not have tried to give them a chance to surrender? No such chance was given.

Again realize, that the Empire didn't give a chance for the Rebels to come out. Hell, going by the movies, there wasn't even a radio transmission demanding the Rebels come out or else. The Empire didn't try to reduce innocent deaths, had they cared about it as you said, they would have given an ultimatum(sp) for them to give up or else. If they didn't come out, then I can see where they may have cared about innocent lives but had no other choice, but they didn't. In no way is that trying to protect the innocent.[/QUOTE]
Again, I've combined your points, this time on The Empire's approach to Alderaan. Hope that's not a problem.

And that's the beauty of In Medias Res (starting in the middle). We only see Star Wars from that point in time, meaning, we can't make a judgment on that because we aren't shown what happened previously. But, given what we've seen from The Empire in the films themselves, I think it's reasonable to say that they did in fact give the Rebels a few warnings before A New Hope.

Tarkin and Vader both know about the Rebels on Alderaan, and as he is issuing orders on Tantive IV, Leia's consular ship, he demands, "Bring me the prisoners, I want them alive!" Dead Rebels are no good to The Empire when they have information, and certainly, the Rebels on Alderaan had information, information that The Empire surely would have demanded previously, based on their behavior in the OT.

[QUOTE]In a previous post, Kane I think it was, said that the DS was built for the sole purpose of inciting fear into the Rebellion, and into any other type of revolt I am assuming. Had it not been destroyed, and with the Rebellion still going, only more planets would become known to house the Rebels. Which would then lead to the use of the DS again, which is more than a one time use of it. For other uprisings with no bearing on the Rebels themselves, the DS would be brought in, and used if need be. No, the DS was made for more than a one time use, one clearly obvious reason being that the Rebellion would not die with the destruction of Alderaan, thus leading to more bases having to be uncovered and destroyed.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Star Wars Database on Death Star']Rather than expend the incredible amounts of resources necessary to subjugate all the worlds of The Empire, the New Order would instead make visible a single show of force that could be used to quell any treasonous activity.[/quote]
I think there is a general misunderstanding about what "single show of force" actually means. Tarkin's motivation for creating the Death Star was to provide a singular, destructive entity with more firepower than a fleet of Star Destroyers. What would take 1000 Star Destroyers to destroy in days, the Death Star could accomplish within an hour, with a singular blast from its superlaser. It's essentially, "One Shot, One Planet."

Now, with that show of force, that singular blast, can be used multiple times, both as a deterrent and/or an actual physical force.

Now, if the first Death Star was not destroyed, and the Rebellion kept planet-hopping, The Empire would continue to use the Death Star as a threat, then destroying the planet when the Rebels refused to surrender. After several times, no planet's citizens would be willing to give the Rebellion any space, forcing them to resort to more extreme, isolated conditions, such as Hoth, where there are no other civilized peoples...no peoples in general: a totally barren planet, which is precisely the type of location the Rebellion should have chosen in the first place.

So, yes, the Death Star is a "one-time use," but that one-time use is a multiple one-time use, because the "single show of force" relates to the Death Star's capacity to destroy entire planets if need be.

Its development is more or less based on battle strategy and economics.

[QUOTE]I bring in the EU, because Kane and others brought in the EU. So I just assumed it is all right to use for reference. If using the EU is still allowed, here is quite a large action where the Republic does in fact think of the civilians. THe Vong bio-agent, capable of defeating an enemy that has been basically kick their butts since day one. I again ask, do they use it as a quick and easy way to defeat the Vong? No they do not. One major worry among the leaders was the overall effect on the planets ecosystem, what types of problems would arise if it came in contact with humans.[/QUOTE]
You have to be careful when dealing with EU. Some EU materials, such as telling the story of the Death Star's construction, Tarkin's proposal, Boba Fett surviving the Sarlacc, do fit within the OT, because they're not basing their premises on thematics/characterizations that are questionable when examined, like Luke's Light/Dark Side alignment in the end of RotJ, or a situation such as Alderaan's weapon cache, the status of which the EU has only Leia's testimonial to base itself on, and Leia is far from reliable.

I realize I keep repeating that point, but it's an important point to consider. Because we never see Alderaan, we have no way of knowing if Leia is telling the truth about Alderaan being an innocent planet. She implies that it's a "peaceful planet," and yet she is speeding there to deliver the Death Star schematics so they can be analyzed.

Based on what we [i]do[/i] know from the OT, from what we see, Leia is lying about Alderaan's neutrality, and so any EU novels/writings based on her unreliable testimonial are also unreliable, because they're based on a shaky foundation.

So, for most of the EU, you have to look at it with a more critical eye, I think, and really evaluate how they relate to particular aspects of the OT. You'll find that much of it is unreliable.

[quote]But again, you have to look at the whole picture. The Rebellion is there to end the rule of the Empire, because of the way the people themselves are treated. Without representation in the Senate quite a lot of people get angry. Kane says that they Empire acts for their people, which is only Imperial humans. What about the other species, humans are probably outnumbered by the sheer amount of alien species in the galaxy, and yet they have no representation. They are basically seen as not worthwhile in any sense. [b]How does that say the Empire is not evil in a way[/b]. A racist ruling body that won't hesitate to destroy a planet for the sake of a "few."[/quote]
I think you're beginning to understand, actually. Both Kane and I have been explaining how The Empire is not totally evil, and how the Rebellion is not totally good, and how they are both more in the gray area than anything else. The racism is obviously a negative point for The Empire. I'm not about to debate that. But in this thread, I think we've raised a few points that do not villify The Empire as much as before, and then the racism does present The Empire as "evil in a way."

If that didn't make sense, I'll revise it tomorrow.

Now, I'd like to hit a few points made earlier that I did not have a chance to in my previous replies.

[quote name='Zeta']In regards to the Clone Army. I am sure that they make up a LARGE part of the Republics army, but I also believe that non-clone troopers besides Jedi are involved. Giving the non-clone troopers the morale booster I was talking about. This could be put into past war conflicts as well, specially the Sith War. Since many, many more regular soldiers were fighting here, the Jedi may have been the boost they needed against the Sith.[/quote]
Firstly, I don't see how this is supposed to argue against the idea that the Jedi were a crutch for the Republic's army.

Secondly, in a war called "The Clone Wars," I don't think there will be any "real" human infantrymen fighting. In the battle sequences in Episode II, it is strictly Clone Army/Jedi versus the Techno Union/Separatists. There is nothing there to suggest that any "real" infantry were present.

In regard to past conflicts, there were no Clone Troopers back then, so of course the army would be made up of non-Clone soldiers. I don't really see what the point here is, though, as Clone Trooper or not, the Republic would still have suffered heavy losses had the Jedi not stepped in and pledged their support.

[quote name='Zeta']We could say that that is in effect exactly what is going on. The terrorists show no sign of giving up, and are hoping for the demise of our nation period. And in my mind, we show no signs of being closer to the goal of stopping terrorism than we were at the time of 9/11. Though that is just me. But yet we still don't use nukes. Just to add my views on the matter, I agree with Bush and what he is trying to do. Sooner or later something like this would have to be done, rather be sooner than later. Just had to add that. ^_^;;[/quote]
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then you do agree with the use of the Death Star, provided the "Death Star" is something that will benefit you or your country.

You have just said here that you consider the War On Terror to be a stagnant fight, with no real victories or progress being made. You imply that the terrorists will stop at nothing to destroy us, so we should consider using more high-powered weaponry to combat them. You question why, and seem to take issue with the fact that our country hasn't used nuclear weapons. If I'm reading your post correctly, you seem supportive of using nuclear weapons to wipe out the terrorists.

Remember when I mentioned how The Empire is America? Do you see me comparing the Rebellion to Hamas and Al Qaida? I think you're making the same comparison without realizing it.

[quote name='Zeta']Your point of the Empire not blowing up Yavin itself gives me a little more respect for the Empire. But all I really see is a commander who can realize what would happen, were he to destroy such a large gas planet in the whole scheme of things. Space around the area could be disturbed for years.[/quote]
Interesting. The Empire then also takes on an Environmentalist quality.

[QUOTE]But also, they only have need to destroy places that have the Rebels on it. No need to destroy an entire system if they can do it for just one planet and recieve the same result.[/QUOTE]
Precisely why they destroy Alderaan.

[quote]THe fact that they would destroy planets for a few(again when I say few, I mean quite a lot compared to the whole population) and not think twice of those who may be loyal to the Empire or plain ignorant of the outside world.[/quote]
I doubt any citizens of Alderaan are loyal to The Empire, considering that Leia, Bail, etc, are leaders of the Rebellion, and are also leaders of Alderaan. But, they may be innocent civilians, and the Rebellion has again inhabited a planet that is home to many innocent people who have no idea what the Rebellion is doing, and die because of the Rebellion's deceit and dishonesty.

[quote=Zeta]If I remember correctly, the Jedi council [i]wanted[/i] to stay out of the war, but Revan and Malak went anyways. Nevermind that the Jedi did fight at this point, but keep in mind they were NOT going to fight at all at that point in time. Yes the Republic would have been crushed, but they Republic was not [i]using[/i] them as their crutch. It was the actions of a few that went and fought, against the wishes of the whole, they didn't want to be a crutch, but ended up being one so to speak if you are using just the fact that Reven and Malak were Jedi and fighting. THe actions of a few, don't reflect the whole in my mind. The Jedi were not a crutch at this point in time, the only ones who could be considered a crutch would be Malak and Revan, they were the ones fighting, not the Jedi themselves as a whole.

And as I have all ready said, when it comes to the Sith fighting in some way or another, then you can consider them being a crutch in a way. The only way to beat a Sith, is to use a Jedi. Pure and simple. That is why Luke was fighting, the enemies were in actuallity the Sith, and he was the only Jedi who could fight. In certain situations the Jedi are the crutch so to speak, but they are not the crutch period. How many battles were won against the Vong before the Jedi figured out how to "sense" them in a way, and figure out how to fight. The first battle on the outer rim was won without the Jedi powers even though they were present. I'll get back to you on others, its been over a year since i have read the books, and am due for another time reading them soon in my mind. How many battles against the Imperial Remnant were won without the help of Jedi? Plenty of Rouge Squadron missions until Jedi began to file into their ranks. In certain circumstance I agree with you two completely, but then in some I do not agree.[/quote]
A Jedi is a Jedi. It doesn't matter if the entire Jedi Order gets involved, or if it's simply two Jedi who take it upon themselves to save the Republic. It's still Jedi saving the Republic, in a fight that the Republic would have lost otherwise, regardless of the enemy (Sith, Vong, Mandalorians, etc).

[quote name='Zeta']Oh , even if they are convicted criminals, does their actions give the Empire the right to destroy the entire planet? Innocents may also have been there such as the wookie slaves. Had they criminals been that big of a threat, they wouldn't have been allowed to live i n the first place.[/quote]
Innocents, [i]innocents[/i], mind you, in a [i]desolate[/i] and [i]remote[/i] planet's [i]prison complex[/i]? I'd have a hard time believing that little Susan Liandra would be sent there for waving her teddy bear in a Stormtrooper's face.

Does a convicted felon, whose crimes were deemed destitute enough to warrant imprisonment in Despayre, have any rights? If someone is bad enough, dangerous enough, that the government deems it necessary to confine them in the farthest, most extreme end of the galaxy, I have a hard time believing that they deserve any rights at all. They were sent there to die for their crimes. Why shed a tear for them? Death is death. When you think about it, the Death Star is a much more humane way to go than dying after 30 years of hard labor.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Well since Alex got to Zeta's post first I'll just make my own judgements on what he/she's said.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']It is a known fact that the Empire came to be through the hidden plans of Palpatine. Forgot who said that the Rebellion is evil because of its dealing with operations and similar things in the shadows, hiding basically. But if that causes the Rebellion to be evil, then it only shows that the Empire is evil too since it came about in the same way as the Rebellion, which is what I have been saying.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]As I've been saying it's not a clear "[I]Good and Evil[/I]" issue, both groups are as capable of evil and under-handed tactics as one another, however we only see The Empire committing such acts at first glance. I've never said that it's The Empire who is good and The Rebels who are evil, what I've said is that we see only the best about The Rebellion and only the worst about The Empire. The Empire is evil yes, but I disagree that it's as evil as it's been made out to be in the Original Trilogy, the same way I disagree The Rebellion is by a long margin as good as it's made out to be. [/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']Did the Empire try all they could to get the Rebels to show their face on Alderaan? If they are indeed concerned about the innocents, would they not have tried to give them a chance to surrender? No such chance was given.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]The Empire didn't have to because Alderaan proved to be the perfect target to test the Death Star, a largely populated Core World that supported the Rebellion. In the opening scenes of [b]A New Hope[/b] we see Vader's Star Destroyer capture Princess Leia consular ship, do the Rebel's try to surrender ? No they armed themselves and tried to shoot off the Imperial Forces who made their way onto the ship.

I think we can see the Rebels weren't even interested in surrendering and as such the same point could have been made towards their garrison on Alderaan. If the Rebels were so interested in the safety of the people of Alderaan why didn't they surrender first ?[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']In a previous post, Kane I think it was, said that the DS was built for the sole purpose of inciting fear into the Rebellion, and into any other type of revolt I am assuming. Had it not been destroyed, and with the Rebellion still going, only more planets would become known to house the Rebels. Which would then lead to the use of the DS again, which is more than a one-time use of it. For other uprisings with no bearing on the Rebels themselves, the DS would be brought in, and used if need be. No, the DS was made for more than a one time use, one clearly obvious reason being that the Rebellion would not die with the destruction of Alderaan, thus leading to more bases having to be uncovered and destroyed.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Siren summed up pretty much what I was going to say here, and what I'd been saying about the Death Star in general. After the destruction of Alderaan many of those planet with heavy populations would have been less inclined to give the Rebels safe haven for fear of the Death Star's power. The fact is that even though the Death Star only destroyed a single planet it still showed how far The Empire was willing to go to defeat The Rebellion.

We see at the beginning of [b]The Empire Strikes Back[/b] that the Rebels have moved their base to the Hoth System, why ? Was it out of choice by Rebel Command to relocate only to systems or planets with minimal populations [u]or[/u] could it have been that many of the planets which had once supported them suddenly decided they didn't want to bring such destruction to their world.

I hadn't meant that the Death Star would be used once and then mothballed, what I had meant was that one use alone would do significantly more damage to the Rebellion than it's Super Laser. The fact that planetary government's could see that their treason might lead to their destruction would be more powerful than any Super Laser the Empire might develop as a weapon against Rebel supporters.[/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']I bring in the EU, because Kane and others brought in the EU. So I just assumed it is all right to use for reference. If using the EU is still allowed, here is quite a large action where the Republic does in fact think of the civilians. THe Vong bio-agent, capable of defeating an enemy that has been basically kick their butts since day one. I again ask, do they use it as a quick and easy way to defeat the Vong? No they do not. One major worry among the leaders was the overall effect on the planets ecosystem, what types of problems would arise if it came in contact with humans.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]Again my point was that in the face of total annihilation at that time The Republic was foolish not to use the pathogen to destroy Vong forces. I do not agree with the use of Weapons of Mass destruction however in that case it may have been warranted if it would save the [b]entire[/b] galaxy from certain destruction. [/SIZE]

[quote name='Zeta']But again, you have to look at the whole picture. The Rebellion is there to end the rule of the Empire, because of the way the people themselves are treated. Without representation in the Senate quite a lot of people get angry. Kane says that they Empire acts for their people, which is only Imperial humans. What about the other species, humans are probably outnumbered by the sheer amount of alien species in the galaxy, and yet they have no representation. They are basically seen as not worthwhile in any sense. How does that say the Empire is not evil in a way. A racist ruling body that won't hesitate to destroy a planet for the sake of a "few." Again realize, that the Empire didn't give a chance for the Rebels to come out. Hell, going by the movies, there wasn't even a radio transmission demanding the Rebels come out or else. The Empire didn't try to reduce innocent deaths, had they cared about it as you said, they would have given an ultimatum(sp) for them to give up or else. If they didn't come out, then I can see where they may have cared about innocent lives but had no other choice, but they didn't. In no way is that trying to protect the innocent.[/quote]

[SIZE=1]People were angry about the lack-of speed and corruption of The Old Republic as well, so I think you're point must be taken with a pinch of salt. As that saying goes you can't please all of the people all of the time. The fact is that Imperial Senate was still active until the [u]beginning[/u] of [B]A New Hope[/b], which means that non-humans still had representation up until that point, so you're point is technically moot.

You're point about the "few Rebels" on Alderaan has already been dealt with so I'm going to ignore it. Again I bring up that the Rebellion was founded by three of the most ambitious Senators in the Old Republic and as such I think their ideals must be questioned before we treat Bail as a martyr. I've dealt with the whole surrender issue already so I'll disregard it too.[/SIZE]

[Zeta]

All right folks, I am not even going to bother replying. I had my response all typed out and everything, hit the post button and voila it didn't post. We'll just leave it where it is at now. I don't feel like having to type my response up for a third time.

Anyway, when you finish the Unifying Force, tell me how you liked it. I personally loved it, great ending to a great series.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]I know the feeling Zeta I almost lost one of my posts earlier this week due to the same problem, I can only advise you to save them on a Microsoft Word Document or Notepad before posting it.

When I do manage to get my hands on [b]Unifying Force[/b] I'll more than likely post about it here and we'll have another 4 page discussion. I thought [b]The Final Prophecy[/b] was a good book though not my favourite by a long margin, so hopefully Unifying Force will be a good end to the series.[/SIZE]

[Zeta]

I don't think you will be dissapointed at all. I went into reading it with kind of low hopes for it because I wasn't that big of a fan of Lucenos Agents of Chaos books. Those two books just didn't really have a NJO feel to them, for some reason I just didn't like them all too much, compared to the others at least.

But this blew me out of my seat. Star by Star is my favorite, but this is a close second. The battles are very well done. Old characters make appearences that I just freaked out at because I was so happy. Yes, you really don't think you will be dissapointed. The only thing I was angry about was that the NJO was over once I put the book down. :-(

[Shinmaru]

[b][url=http://dvd.ign.com/articles/545/545786p1.html]IGN Review of Star Wars Trilogy on DVD[/url][/b]

Ten page review from IGN on the Star Wars trilogy DVD set. Starts off with some Star Wars-related stories before getting into the actual content and rating of the DVDs. It's a good read, I think.

Anyway, I've been looking forward to this for a while, and I know that many others have, as well. There will always be the people who ***** and moan endlessly about the changes that George Lucas brought forth when he re-released the original trilogy back in 1997. Personally, there were changes I liked and changes that I didn't like, but I'm not going to complain endlessly about them. Should be the same for this set. I'm expecting that there will be aspects about it that I love, and aspects that I really dislike.

However, for me, the pure thrill of seeing the A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi all in DVD quality will probably be more than enough for me to love the set. The extra documentaries and stuff also sound good, even if, according to the review, the information gets a bit redundant at times. Despite any shortcomings it might have, however, I'll still be picking it up once it's released on the 21st.

[Sol-Blade]

Hooray for Lucas! Bout time they released them out on dvd (This is the first time...right?). Anyways, I hope this doesn't spark up all the pointless debates like the whole "Han shot first!" issue. Han [I]did[/I] shoot first, now let it go. The changes don't bother me as much, but I can't believe some of the people who flipped out over the re-releases back in the 90's.

[Shinmaru]

Yeah, this is the first time they've been released on DVD. The original trilogy has been released on VHS and LaserDisc among other mediums (I'm sure someone here will know every single medium that the Star Wars trilogy has been released on), but this is the first time that Episodes IV, V and VI will see the light of day on DVD.

[Brasil]

For me, it's not so much that Lucas is adding in scenes.

It's more that it changes a character dynamic that didn't need to be changed. We know that Han Solo is scum. We know he's a trickster, a swindler, and a killer. He's a mercenary, and mercenaries aren't honest people, especially in Star Wars. Yes, we have Boba Fett, who seems honorable, but he's cold-hearted just like Solo.

Having Greedo shoot first doesn't change the fact that Han is a sneaky bastard, lol, even though that was Lucas' intent by inserting that shot in there. Han still has his blaster under the table, and Greedo still gets fried. What the problem is with that, and where most of the criticism comes from, I think, is that Han [i]does[/i] play dirty to begin with. I mean, Lando still challenges him that the game of Sabacc wasn't fair.

So, Han is a scumbag no matter how we're given the scene, and it actually makes more sense for Han to shoot first in any edition, when you see that his character doesn't change at all, because as Greedo approaches, in both versions, Han still unclasps his holster, lol. I know we didn't want a debate about this, but Han was going to fry Greedo no matter who was taking the first shot, and the audience knows that.

Yes, there are some OT Purists out there who are ranting and raving simply because the OT is getting changed, but I think there are some intelligent viewers out there who disagree with that change simply because it's an un-necessary attempt at changing a character dynamic that doesn't change at all between Editions anyway.

As for the other changes, I seriously doubt that inserting the scene with Jabba in A New Hope was necessary, for two reasons. One, Jabba's dialogue is redundant, as Greedo explained it just a few minutes before, and two, we see Jabba in A New Hope, which severely, severely diminishes the impact he has in Return Of The Jedi.

RotJ was our very first look at this Hutt-slug, and few can say they weren't just the least bit disgusted and shocked at the huge, malformed slimy cretin. Jabba in RotJ was ugly...butt-ugly. Why should we need to see him in ANH?

Simply, we don't.

I've not yet heard Lucas' reasoning for editing in Hayden Christiansen's eyes and face for RotJ's Darth Vader unmasked, and for Anakin's Force Spirit, but why the need to change Anakin's appearance? It's clear that Anakin's Force Spirit is older, so why digitally alter it?

Is it to link the Prequels and OT together? If that's the reason, then why not use Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan instead of Alec Guinness? And for that matter, are we going to see a CG Yoda's Force Spirit instead of the ESB Yoda?

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=Siren] I've not yet heard Lucas' reasoning for editing in Hayden Christiansen's eyes and face for RotJ's Darth Vader unmasked, and for Anakin's Force Spirit, but why the need to change Anakin's appearance? It's clear that Anakin's Force Spirit is older, so why digitally alter it?

Is it to link the Prequels and OT together? If that's the reason, then why not use Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan instead of Alec Guinness? And for that matter, are we going to see a CG Yoda's Force Spirit instead of the ESB Yoda?[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Well my time is limited but I just wanted to enquire about what Alex has said here, is it true that he's actually edited out David Prowse from the ending of ROTJ in favour of Christiansen. I mean like it or not Prowse and Earl-Jones were Vader, personally I liked seeing Prowse as Anakin at the end of the film as it sort of completed the circle, from Padawan to Sith and back to Jedi. The idea that his role in the film has been reduced to the point where we see him for less than a minute is a sad occurance.

I'll come back on this later.[/SIZE]

[Shinmaru]

According to the IGN article, Hayden Christiansen's edit into Return of the Jedi directly relates to events that will be taking place in Episode III. Also, there are supposed to be a few Episode III spoilers on the extra disc packaged with the DVD set, some of which I believe explain this. I'm not entirely sure about that, though, because I can't remember exactly how IGN worded it.

[Brasil]

I only have a few seconds here, so I'll make this brief...as brief as I can be. :p

Kane, I think I mis-spoke, or at least wasn't clear about the whole "Editing Anakin's face" in RotJ. What I meant was that when Darth Vader's helmet is removed (we really should use Spoiler tags, but oh well, heh), Lucas is digitally altering the face, specifically the eyebrows and re-coloring the eyes to match Hayden Christiansen's. The Force Spirit is going to be totally re-done, from what I can tell, with Hayden Christiansen replacing Sebastian Shaw.

And on an unrelated note, I've had discussions in the past about how Luke falls to the Dark Side in RotJ, and Boba Fett (who was the Counterpoint in that debate) now agrees with me. I was recently going through RotJ, and one line of The Emperor's struck me:

"Strike him down and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete."

It occurred to me that if Luke is already on the Dark Side, his journey is complete before striking down Vader. So, I thought about it, and it'd be a rather important point to consider that has a significant impact on Luke's Dark Side/Light Side status in RotJ.

After musing over it, I've concluded that the "Dark Side" Palpatine speaks of isn't the Dark Side of the Force, necessarily, but more refers to the idea that The Empire, Palpatine, etc, is the Dark Side's other half...the...Non-Force Dark Side, if that makes sense.

As it stands, as Luke is poised over Vader, and throughout RotJ, Luke is Dark Side, as is Vader, but Vader still serves Palpatine, and Luke does not. Had Luke killed Vader, then he, like we are told by The Emperor himself, would have taken Vader's place, and his journey to the Dark Side would be completed, as he was Dark Side Force-wise, and after killing Vader, would be Dark Side Empire-wise.

I may not have explained that clearly...my head is absolutely pounding right now, and my sinuses aren't worth a damn, lol, so if you'd like me to clear it up later, I will.