The Case for the Empire

[Patroklos]

That is the point, you can't have a revolutionary rebellion without the innocent blood on your hands that goes with it. The Rebellion was a full scale guerrilla war against a government power, and there is no reason to assume that it would not have the same characteristics of every other guerrilla war of the same sort here. We happen to see the story told from the Rebel point of view, and furthermore don't see the day to day operation of either side.

So if some here can make the assumption that the Empire is a genocidal and evil entity because of the characteristics of some dictators here on earth, I extend the same assumption to the Rebels.

And no, scale in death matters greatly. The several billion deaths of Alderran are nothing in a universe of a trillion trillion soles. In fact, death on that scale is by no means rare in that universe, the Empire iteself has used more than a few Base Nine Zero (think thats it) orders it day.

Do you think we don't use scale in China, want to tell me why 200 million deaths under the communists raises nobodies eye brow?

You are operating under archaic, sublight speed philosophy that the denizens of the galactic republic and especially empire abandond thousands of years ago. Before a long time ago of course

[Pax]

Patroklos,
I believe that we are on the same side of this discussion. Maybe I worded my response in a way that made you think differently. My comments were directed at Imran

[Patroklos]

Pax,

Not direceted at you, just got back into the discussion late

[Sprayber]

RANDAL
Now the first one they built was
completed and fully operational
before the Rebels destroyed it.

DANTE
Luke blew it up. Give credit where
it's due.

RANDAL
And the second one was still being
built when they blew it up.

DANTE
Compliments of Lando Calrissian.

RANDAL
Something just never sat right with
me the second time they destroyed
it. I could never put my finger on
it-something just wasn't right.

DANTE
And you figured it out?

RANDAL
Well, the thing is, the first Death
Star was manned by the Imperial
army-storm troopers, dignitaries-
the only people onboard were
Imperials.

DANTE
Basically.

RANDAL
So when they blew it up, no prob.
Evil is punished.

DANTE
And the second time around...?

49.


RANDAL
The second time around, it wasn't
even finished yet. They were still
under construction.

DANTE
So?

RANDAL
A construction job of that magnitude
would require a helluva lot more
manpower than the Imperial army had
to offer. I'll bet there were
independent contractors working on
that thing: plumbers, aluminum
siders, roofers.

DANTE
Not just Imperials, is what you're
getting at.

RANDAL
Exactly. In order to get it built
quickly and quietly they'd hire
anybody who could do the job. Do
you think the average storm trooper
knows how to install a toilet main?
All they know is killing and white
uniforms.

DANTE
All right, so even if independent
contractors are working on the
Death Star, why are you uneasy with
its destruction?

RANDAL
All those innocent contractors
hired to do a job were killed-
casualties of a war they had
nothing to do with.
(notices Dante's confusion)
All right, look-you're a roofer,
and some juicy government contract
comes your way; you got the wife
and kids and the two-story in
suburbia-this is a government
contract, which means all sorts of
benefits. All of a sudden these
left-wing militants blast you with
lasers and wipe out everyone within
a three-mile radius.
(MORE)

50.


RANDAL (CONT'D)
You didn't ask for that. You have
no personal politics. You're just
trying to scrape out a living.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The idiea behind the U.S. targeting civilians was to win the war.

Was Alderaan officially a part of the rebellion? It wasn't. It'd be like nuking the crap out of Syria because some terrorists may be from there. This wasn't a total war, but a speculation that some rebels came from Alderaan without any proof.

Once again, by Neo-con standards the American Revolutionaries would have been classified as terrorists who hate freedom and are jealous of the British way of life.

You show your ignorance with every post. Neo Conservatism is about spreading democracy, so they'd praise France's actions in helping to overthrow a monarchical regime in the colonies, but at the same time want the French monarchy overthrown.

Perhaps you should stop speaking about neo-conservatism since you don't know your head from your ass about it.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The idiea behind the U.S. targeting civilians was to win the war.

Was Alderaan officially a part of the rebellion? It wasn't. It'd be like nuking the crap out of Syria because some terrorists may be from there. This wasn't a total war, but a speculation that some rebels came from Alderaan without any proof.

Once again, by Neo-con standards the American Revolutionaries would have been classified as terrorists who hate freedom and are jealous of the British way of life.

You show your ignorance with every post. Neo Conservatism is about spreading democracy, so they'd praise France's actions in helping to overthrow a monarchical regime in the colonies, but at the same time want the French monarchy overthrown.

Perhaps you should stop speaking about neo-conservatism since you don't know your head from your ass about it.

Neo-conservatives support allied countries conducting "pre-emptive" strikes in other nations sovereign territory. Like for example, attacks on Syrian soil. Thanks for proving my point.

Neo-conservatives also ally themselves with non-democratic countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia proving they could give a **** about democracy. The important thing is the dominance of the U.S. for them. Thus the name project for a new AMERICAN CENTURY.

You seem to believe strongly in the Neo-con message but very little for the founding principles of American Society. Specifically freedom of speech and avoiding entangling alliances.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pax
Bombings of CIVILIAN population centers in Germany and Japan was approved by the U.S. government. The U.S. government also authorized burning down my home city. The idiea behind the U.S. targeting civilians was to win the war.

the US strategic bombing campaign in Germany targeted factories. Innaccuracy of bombing at the time meant that residential areas were also hit. There is at least one memo at the time indicating that Bomber Harris of the RAF (BRITAIN) approved of civilian deaths - but the air campaign was NOT focused on targets other than factories, etc. Hiroshima might be a better analogy.

Of course all this happened after a war that went on for years, after rising civilian casualties on both sides - after what Germany had done in Russia and elsewhere (not to mention the Jews) and after what Japan had done in China, people were pretty morally numb.

Theres nothing in ANH that indicates such a level of atrocities by the rebellion.


But if you want to use this thread to rant about how evil the US is, feel free. I can well see why you wouldnt like PNAC.

[DinoDoc]

It's a liberal foreign policy, Pax. That's all it is. However based on the content of both of your posts, I think he's a little more versed in it than you seem to be.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pax

Neo-conservatives also ally themselves with non-democratic countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia proving they could give a **** about democracy.

You obviously havent looked very carefully at the PNAC site, certainly not at the articles about Russia and Russian democracy.

You also havent talked with Serb (our local pro-Putin Russian poster) lately.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/putin-20040915.htm

[Imran Siddiqui]

Neo-conservatives support allied countries conducting "pre-emptive" strikes in other nations sovereign territory.

If that is necessary to foster democracy then yes.

Neo-conservatives also ally themselves with non-democratic countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia proving they could give a **** about democracy. The important thing is the dominance of the U.S. for them.

Which neo-conservative? Bush?!

Sorry, neo-conservativism is based on spreading democracy by force, not through international organizations like run of the mill liberals support. It's been called 'Hard Wilsonianism'.

As Irving Kristol (one of the original neoconservatives) said a neoconservative is a 'liberal mugged by reality'.

The 'dominance of the US' is utterly silly comment, because neoconservatives are NOT realists and thus do not believe in a foriegn policy based on the interests of the country.

You seem to believe strongly in the Neo-con message but very little for the founding principles of American Society. Specifically freedom of speech and avoiding entangling alliances.

Wha? How does free speech get stifled by aggressively trying to promote democracy and free trade in the world?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The 'dominance of the US' is utterly silly comment, because neoconservatives are NOT realists and thus do not believe in a foriegn policy based on the interests of the country.

Actually they believe that democracy promotion IS in Americas interests. They dont agree that their position is not "realist". You may not agree with this, and many political thinkers, foreign policy experts etc dont, but PNAC certainly does.

[Pax]

1. I don't hate the U.S. or think it's evil. It's just facts.
2. I respect your opinion Dino but my point of view is based on reading the news, history and going to the website. It's not party rhetoric, since, I'm not really a democrat.
3. I am an anti-imperialist and based on the record PNAC promotes the idea of an american empire that cares little for anything other than maintaining american dominance.
4. As George Barnard Shaw once wrote in a play. In order for Great Britain to be the most powerful country in the world they just have to maintain the status qou. This holds true for the U.S. Destabilizing countries and causing confusion across the globe will maintain american power.

[DinoDoc]

Imran isn't defending PNAC. Now if you have some knowledge of what a Neo-con is that doesn't stem from a single website please present it for all to see because I'm somewhat interested in this debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually they believe that democracy promotion IS in Americas interests.

Whether it is or isn't is not the issue. Neo-conservatives do not care about 'interests'. That is realist talk. Neo-cons are liberals in the IR scheme.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Pax

1. I don't hate the U.S. or think it's evil. It's just facts.
2. I respect your opinion Dino but my point of view is based on reading the news, history and going to the website.

But not reading it carefully, since you got their opinion on Russia wrong by 180 degrees.

It's not party rhetoric, since, I'm not really a democrat.
3. I am an anti-imperialist and based on the record PNAC promotes the idea of an american empire that cares little for anything other than maintaining american dominance.

thats NOT whats on their website.

4. As George Barnard Shaw once wrote in a play. In order for Great Britain to be the most powerful country in the world they just have to maintain the status qou. This holds true for the U.S. Destabilizing countries and causing confusion across the globe will maintain american power.

Causing confusion and instability maintains the status quo? Now youve got ME confused.