StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Durran Korr wrote:

And if you take note of some of the EU literature, there are in fact many worlds (even well before the YV conflict) who much rather the Empire's rule, and there was even suppose to be an non-human dominant world somewhere that had worked perfectly as self-governing with minimum Imperial overseen.

Great! Wonderful! Let those worlds live under the government of their choice; just don't force other systems to accept a government they do not want.

In other words, break up the galaxy into individual tin pot nations.
Yeah, real clever.

Yes, the Empire bombed planets to hell to maintain order, in real-life, the United States obliterated two Japanese cities to establish peace, regardless of the reasons, A-Bombing civilians is an atrocity, by your logic the USA is evil.

Yup, the USA shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Were you expecting me to believe otherwise?

Says who. Totalitarian governments have lasted a lot longer than so-called democracies in real-life.
You cannot say that the Empire didn't work, because it DID, only the lack of a unifying leader broke it apart.

Most of the great Empires in the history of the world have been able to survive leadership changes fairly well. The Empire of Star Wars could not even survive one leadership change; this is not the sign of a stable Empire.

Durran Korr wrote:

Yes, the Empire bombed planets to hell to maintain order, in real-life, the United States obliterated two Japanese cities to establish peace, regardless of the reasons, A-Bombing civilians is an atrocity, by your logic the USA is evil.

Yup, the USA shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Were you expecting me to believe otherwise?

No. I am simply pointing out that such atrocities do not automatically make governments evil, the world is more complicated than that.

Says who. Totalitarian governments have lasted a lot longer than so-called democracies in real-life.
You cannot say that the Empire didn't work, because it DID, only the lack of a unifying leader broke it apart.

Most of the great Empires in the history of the world have been able to survive leadership changes fairly well. The Empire of Star Wars could not even survive one leadership change; this is not the sign of a stable Empire.[/quote]

It did not survive the leadership change because there was no suitable heir for such an all-encompasing leader.

Durran Korr wrote:

And if you take note of some of the EU literature, there are in fact many worlds (even well before the YV conflict) who much rather the Empire's rule, and there was even suppose to be an non-human dominant world somewhere that had worked perfectly as self-governing with minimum Imperial overseen.

Great! Wonderful! Let those worlds live under the government of their choice; just don't force other systems to accept a government they do not want.

Okay, answer me this... Ultimately, which one is better: short term gains, or long term benefits? Or in other words, as many have already pointed out: had the Rebel Alliance not overthrown the Empire and destroyed every attempt to restablish the New Order, the +90 billion people who had been left behind when the YV took over Coruscant would not have been the victim of the controlling powers of New Republic who emulated their predecessors in the Old Republic. And this is talking about Coruscant alone.

Durran Korr wrote:Luck? The victory at Naboo was not luck; Amidala's capturing of the Viceroy was a well-thought out plan. Obi-Wan beat Darth Maul because he was more clever and quicker. Anakin's victory is irrelevant; the battle of Naboo was over when Darth Maul was killed and the Viceroy was captured.

I suggest you read the novel, one of the cut bits was the fact that the droid army was breaking down the door to save the viceroy hen Anakin destroyed the ship. His role was very important.

Durran Korr wrote:Yup, the USA shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Were you expecting me to believe otherwise?

Far worse things then the use of nuclear weapons were done by all sides in WW2. The casualites of Hiroshima plae compared to Dresden. The Internment camps were as nasty to prisoners as any other POW groups during that time (minus the random killing), and they were for american civillians. Why is it that the nuclear bomb is always what is brought up though?

Durran Korr wrote:

And if you take note of some of the EU literature, there are in fact many worlds (even well before the YV conflict) who much rather the Empire's rule, and there was even suppose to be an non-human dominant world somewhere that had worked perfectly as self-governing with minimum Imperial overseen.

Great! Wonderful! Let those worlds live under the government of their choice; just don't force other systems to accept a government they do not want.

A question for you:
Would you rather live under tyrany, where there is the chance to win your freedom, or be tortured to death outright?
One of the books said it best, the Sith merely wanted to rule the galaxy, the Vong want to sacrifice it.

Ender wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:

And if you take note of some of the EU literature, there are in fact many worlds (even well before the YV conflict) who much rather the Empire's rule, and there was even suppose to be an non-human dominant world somewhere that had worked perfectly as self-governing with minimum Imperial overseen.

Great! Wonderful! Let those worlds live under the government of their choice; just don't force other systems to accept a government they do not want.

A question for you:
Would you rather live under tyrany, where there is the chance to win your freedom, or be tortured to death outright?
One of the books said it best, the Sith merely wanted to rule the galaxy, the Vong want to sacrifice it.

Tyranny, with the chance to rebel, of course, but we're talking about two really shitty options here. And again, I have no way of knowing that the planet I live on will not one day become connected to Rebel "terrorism" by the actions of a few individuals and be destroyed. No one is free while the liberties of others are in danger. We always imagine ourselves as beneficiaries of Imperial power, not the victims of it. I'm not trying to deny the effectiveness of the Empire at protecting the galaxy so much as I'm trying to argue that the problems faced by the Galaxy do not require a military dictatorship to be fixed.

Durran Korr wrote:

Ender wrote:

Durran Korr wrote: Great! Wonderful! Let those worlds live under the government of their choice; just don't force other systems to accept a government they do not want.

A question for you:
Would you rather live under tyrany, where there is the chance to win your freedom, or be tortured to death outright?
One of the books said it best, the Sith merely wanted to rule the galaxy, the Vong want to sacrifice it.

Tyranny, with the chance to rebel, of course, but we're talking about two really shitty options here. And again, I have no way of knowing that the planet I live on will not one day become connected to Rebel "terrorism" by the actions of a few individuals and be destroyed.

Somewhat of an exageration, such worlds as Alderaan for example were not destroyed because of the actions of individuals, but because their people and government were gearing up to openly support rebellion.
You could say the Empire blowing up Alderaan was evil, but if it hadn't, Alderaan would've contributed to death and destruction in the name of rebellion.

No one is free while the liberties of others are in danger. We always imagine ourselves as beneficiaries of Imperial power, not the victims of it. I'm not trying to deny the effectiveness of the Empire at protecting the galaxy so much as I'm trying to argue that the problems faced by the Galaxy do not require a military dictatorship to be fixed.

Seeing as the NR failed against the Vong, and the OR probably would have to, while the Empire, the only other form of galactic government would've most likely won, you can't say that.
The truth is, the Empire's military dictatorship was the only government that had a chance of stopping this genocide, while the side-effect of that being oppresions both percieved and real.
Again, that is why it's more complicated than good vs. evil.

Imperial Federation wrote:

Durran Korr wrote:

Ender wrote:A question for you:
Would you rather live under tyrany, where there is the chance to win your freedom, or be tortured to death outright?
One of the books said it best, the Sith merely wanted to rule the galaxy, the Vong want to sacrifice it.

Tyranny, with the chance to rebel, of course, but we're talking about two really shitty options here. And again, I have no way of knowing that the planet I live on will not one day become connected to Rebel "terrorism" by the actions of a few individuals and be destroyed.

Somewhat of an exageration, such worlds as Alderaan for example were not destroyed because of the actions of individuals, but because their people and government were gearing up to openly support rebellion.
You could say the Empire blowing up Alderaan was evil, but if it hadn't, Alderaan would've contributed to death and destruction in the name of rebellion.

No one is free while the liberties of others are in danger. We always imagine ourselves as beneficiaries of Imperial power, not the victims of it. I'm not trying to deny the effectiveness of the Empire at protecting the galaxy so much as I'm trying to argue that the problems faced by the Galaxy do not require a military dictatorship to be fixed.

Seeing as the NR failed against the Vong, and the OR probably would have to, while the Empire, the only other form of galactic government would've most likely won, you can't say that.
The truth is, the Empire's military dictatorship was the only government that had a chance of stopping this genocide, while the side-effect of that being oppresions both percieved and real.
Again, that is why it's more complicated than good vs. evil.

Whether or whether not Alderaan was genuinely guilty of rebellion (it surely was, but that is irrelevant) doesn't matter; the decision to destroy Alderaan appears to have been made on a whim by Tarkin; an investigation into Alderaan's activity should have been carried out before the rash decision to destroy it was made, and if ample evidence had turned up, an attempt to pacify the world without blowing it up should have been made. Is Tarkin 100% positive, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Alderaan is involved in Rebel Activity? Why do we have any reason to believe that Tarkin, or perhaps another Moff, would not have continued cruising through the galaxy, blowing up planets where terrorists may or may not have resided?

As Nova Andromeda has pointed out, the Empire is a dictatorship, and if the dictator is genuinely evil (no sane argument can possibly be made to deny Palpatine's evil), the Empire is evil.

And in my defense, I never said that was no more complicated than good vs. evil in the cases of the Expanded Universe and the prequels. I only said if was this simple in the case of the classic trilogy. I realize that the NJO and the prequels are loaded with moral ambiguity.

I'm going to go work on finishing the NJO now. Thanks for not ruthlessly attacking me for being a newbie.

Durran Korr wrote:Thanks for not ruthlessly attacking me for being a newbie.

Well, I would have, but we have no n00b traditional hazing here yet. Maybe I should start some.



There you go. This is a pooduck. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Seeing the fury with which Darth Wong attacked some of the noobs on the science board kind of scared me out of posting here for a while.

Where did you get that picture? Is it something from the next Enterprise episode?

And don't worry. No one here cares that you are new to the board, so long as your points are reasonable. We just object to it when n00bs come over and think they have all sorts of new arguments for why ST would mop the floor with SW when their arguments have already been dealt with, or when they just make complete idiots of themselves. If you are smart, even if you have a minority point of view, we will listen to you if you have 1 post or 1000.