these people are self-obsessed idiots who never paid attention to Star Wars:
ALL, *ALL* of the Expanded Universe novels since the mid-1990's have made it a point that the day-to-day fighting of the Galactic Civil War consisted of "The Rebel Alliance conducting starfighter raids on Imperial military convoys, to show that they CAN be defeated"
That is *CLASSIC* insurgency tactics. We only see standup fights in the movies because they're the exceptions.
The Rebels don't even "control" planets: they have hidden bases in the Afghanistan/Hindu Kush of space: desolate places like Hoth
How about the type of fighting waged in the prequels--two factions running at each other on a flat plain in 18th-century style lines. It always bothered me that, with the use of planes and ranged weapons, they still fought as if they were using swords and arrows. It seemed like a tremendous lack of vision, though that's not saying anything new about the prequels.
I'd have to say that the development of the Death Star implies that an insurgency was in progress, though the story doesn't discuss it. What better remedy to planetary insurgency could there be than the ability to blow away the insurgents' home planet, or perhaps their ONLY planet?
Why else devote such effort and resources to building a weapon that could easily be surveilled and avoided?
@Roklimber: And most of them probably visit this site. Besides, the arguments aren't even that long! I've seen longer treatises about how River Tam is the axis about which the universe turns.
Of course, you can also look at this as a clash between factions of the ruling elite of the Old Republic - Leia, Mon Mothma, Gen Madine - not exactly working class stiffs. Palpatine's rise is obviously comparable to Hitler, or in more modern times Chavez or Zeyala's recent attempt in Honduras - it is not technically a coup since the leader is a democratically elected civilian who manipulates the institutions of democracy to become leader for life them, and eventually abolish or undermine those very institutions he used to gain power (the old one man, one vote, once), all while appearing to stay more or less within the law (which is changed when it becomes inconvenient). The losing faction in the Senate is then exiled to the provinces, where they have their own troops and military power base (like the Caesars of Rome).
On the other hand, part of the problem is that writers and fans can't really decide if the Old Republic was more an analogue of a UN-type supranational organization, a Roman Empire in space or a nation-state. The Trade Fed vs Naboo sort of suggests the UN comparison, but later it seems to be more of a Roman Republic becomes Roman Empire thing. Perhaps it is best described as a UN the way that transnational socialists want it to be.
Zelaya tried to do that and then a coup (backed by the military and the congress) was staged to depose him.
And actually, the Rebellion did use insurgent warfare, but on a planetary scale. They found allies in the Acbar-ish (don't remember the name of the species) Mon-Calamaris, Bothans, Sullusteans(?), Wookies, etc...; to undermine the power the Empire had on those specific planets. What they did with the 2 Death Stars was sabotage, pretty insurgent as well!
the open battle was just a distraction.
SIDE NOTE: Almost all my Star Wars knowledge comes from the very underrated old pc-game "Star Wars: Rebellion"
@Medicinerik: That was a great game. But you know, if you play "Rebellion," it becomes apparent that the Battle of Endor was just ridiculous. There's no way 3 or 4 Mon Calamari cruisers and a couple of Nebulon-B frigates could beat a fleet consisting of a Super Star Destroyer and multiple Star Destroyers--Death Star or no Death Star. It's just preposterous. Preposterous!
@demonelite: The real lesson of that game is that the Death Star is a stupid investment. You could build a dozen star destroyers for the resources that pig eats. And the Rebels always blow it up with their crappy cheap little fighters.
@Canoehead: I don't mean to start a discussion on politics, but while I agree with you on Chavez, Zelaya is a totally different story. I've tried to sum it up but I ended up writing something huge and illegible, so I'll just link the wikipedia article, and follow the links inside if you have interest in checking the sources. [en.wikipedia.org]
The basic facts are:
-Zelaya wanted to ask people not once, but twice, if they wanted their presidents to have more than one terms
-Because of the timing, that could not apply to him, but to the next president. I Repeat: Zelaya could not be reelected even if he succeeded
-Whether or not you like it, think that the current de facto president, Micheletti, Who has been a member of Congress since 1982, is a man who tried to be their party's presidential candidate twice before, and who hasn't expressed any intention of calling a new election anytime soon.
BTW: Did you know that Colombia also modified their constitution in 2004 so that their president could be able to extend their mandate? Have you heard about Colombia's president trying to perpetuate in power? no. Because he's an ally of the US (and, appearently, Europe's, because I don't see anybody getting warmed up about it here either)
@Dirk Anger: Or maybe I understood the complete opposite to what you meant, because the comparison would make total sense, if referred to the current de facto president, being " a democratically elected civilian who manipulates the institutions of democracy to become leader for life them, and eventually abolish or undermine those very institutions he used to gain power".
@cletar: The appeal of building a fleet of death stars can't be denied. Anyway, the the best weapon that the Empire had at its disposal was the Interdictor-class cruiser. Hit-and-run tactics don't work so great when you can't run away.
@Medicinerik: It is not a coup if the military is serving an arrest warrant issued by the country's supreme court (which under their constitution is legal it wouldn't be in the USA) and then power is turned over to the Congress and the VP.
The Empire actually fell victim to Palpatine's theories of deregulation and privatization.
By outsourcing a great deal of labor to the clones and allowing Hothiburton to build the first Death Star, he essentially lost the war due to lowest bid contracts and shoddy labor.
While the second Death Star made up for many of the defects in the first project, Palpatine continued to rely on outside consultants and failed to heed the expertise of his Grand Moffs and other officials that warned him about continuing problems with the Death Star design.
@twophrasebark:
I can only imagine what his credit rating looked like after the first one blew up. From what I hear, he didn't even have a chance to pay it off.
@ManchuCandidate: I hear he financed the second one with a balloon mortgage. And then his debt was chopped up and parceled out to banks and hedge funds throughout the galaxy. Which, of course, led to what is now known as the Great Galactic Recession. Hell, Jawas couldn't even get their sandcrawlers financed for a while there.
Come on! If we looked at it through a COIN prisim then in what people's revolution would ever make a teenage boy who still had Bantha Fodder between his toes, a flight leader (the guy in Red Five)?
Or why a galactic empire build a bad ass armored space station with a planet destroying laser without any decent AA armament and given a serious exploitable weakness? That would be like making a $350 million dollar stealth fighter whose stealth capabilities degrade in high humidity... Oh right.
@ManchuCandidate: To be fair, assaulting an armored defense station with a few dinky aircraft is a suicide mission. No one would be crazy enough to do something like that!
Gah, no. The Rebels only attacked the first Death Star because it was bearing right down on it's home base. They attacked the second because they thought it'd be a relatively easy win, not to mention killing the Imperial head of state.
There were rebel insurgent groups on many imperial planets. But they were usually local resistance groups, trying only to free that specific world. The Rebel Alliance proper were, as Tagge said, "too well equipped… They're more dangerous than you realize."
They did have the resources to make a handful of chosen specific, precise attacks on high value targets. If they had followed the X-Wing series they'd know that the starfighter fleet was regularly tasked with hit-and-run attacks.
And yes, I am embarrassed I took offense at those papers.
@ThisDudeRufus: It seems silly to conclude that they 'only attacked the first Death Star because it was bearing down [on them]', seeings as the entirety of episode IV is centered around getting the Death Star plans into the hands of the Rebel Alliance.
Low intensity (insurgency) and high intensity (conventional) conflict are not mutually exclusive. There were numerous partisan activities in occupied Europe before the Normandy landings. Even in Germany itself there were people resisting the Nazis. But it took conventional warfare and the invasion of Germany from the east and west to topple the Nazi government.
Why didn't Robert E Lee pursue a strategy of insurgency, instead of making a regular old army with uniforms and battles and whatnot?
The Rebellion wasn't an insurgency for the same reason the Confederacy wasn't. They were one of the factions in a civil war.
Besides, we don't really know what was going on elsewhere. The scope of the viewpoint of the conflict in the original trilogy is pretty limited. We see a frontier backwater, a mining town, and military installations on two remote worlds--one of them an uninhabited icy waste. We don't see what's going on at the major population centers. Maybe there are insurgent bombings every day on Coruscant, but we never see that.
"Somewhere, George Lucas is shaking his head and thinking to himself that just meant to make a good movie..." He's been doing that a lot since Phantom Menace. It's how is neck ended up like that.
09/02/09
Very little, it was a kiddy-story.
"Why didn't the Rebel Alliance pursue a strategy of insurgency in their rebellion against the Galactic Empire?"
Perhaps because insurgencies unsupported by conventional forces hardly ever win.
On a different tangent, does the Akbar poster above indicate that he's pro- or anti- Obama? Kind of a weird mixed message.
-Kle.
09/01/09
ALL, *ALL* of the Expanded Universe novels since the mid-1990's have made it a point that the day-to-day fighting of the Galactic Civil War consisted of "The Rebel Alliance conducting starfighter raids on Imperial military convoys, to show that they CAN be defeated"
That is *CLASSIC* insurgency tactics. We only see standup fights in the movies because they're the exceptions.
The Rebels don't even "control" planets: they have hidden bases in the Afghanistan/Hindu Kush of space: desolate places like Hoth
09/01/09
09/02/09
09/01/09
Why else devote such effort and resources to building a weapon that could easily be surveilled and avoided?
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
*koff, koff* Does anyone else feel warm all the sudden?
09/01/09
On the other hand, part of the problem is that writers and fans can't really decide if the Old Republic was more an analogue of a UN-type supranational organization, a Roman Empire in space or a nation-state. The Trade Fed vs Naboo sort of suggests the UN comparison, but later it seems to be more of a Roman Republic becomes Roman Empire thing. Perhaps it is best described as a UN the way that transnational socialists want it to be.
09/01/09
Zelaya tried to do that and then a coup (backed by the military and the congress) was staged to depose him.
And actually, the Rebellion did use insurgent warfare, but on a planetary scale. They found allies in the Acbar-ish (don't remember the name of the species) Mon-Calamaris, Bothans, Sullusteans(?), Wookies, etc...; to undermine the power the Empire had on those specific planets. What they did with the 2 Death Stars was sabotage, pretty insurgent as well!
the open battle was just a distraction.
SIDE NOTE: Almost all my Star Wars knowledge comes from the very underrated old pc-game "Star Wars: Rebellion"
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
The basic facts are:
-Zelaya wanted to ask people not once, but twice, if they wanted their presidents to have more than one terms
-Because of the timing, that could not apply to him, but to the next president. I Repeat: Zelaya could not be reelected even if he succeeded
-Whether or not you like it, think that the current de facto president, Micheletti, Who has been a member of Congress since 1982, is a man who tried to be their party's presidential candidate twice before, and who hasn't expressed any intention of calling a new election anytime soon.
BTW: Did you know that Colombia also modified their constitution in 2004 so that their president could be able to extend their mandate? Have you heard about Colombia's president trying to perpetuate in power? no. Because he's an ally of the US (and, appearently, Europe's, because I don't see anybody getting warmed up about it here either)
09/01/09
09/01/09
...man, I loved that ship...
09/01/09
09/01/09
By outsourcing a great deal of labor to the clones and allowing Hothiburton to build the first Death Star, he essentially lost the war due to lowest bid contracts and shoddy labor.
While the second Death Star made up for many of the defects in the first project, Palpatine continued to rely on outside consultants and failed to heed the expertise of his Grand Moffs and other officials that warned him about continuing problems with the Death Star design.
09/01/09
I can only imagine what his credit rating looked like after the first one blew up. From what I hear, he didn't even have a chance to pay it off.
09/01/09
09/02/09
09/01/09
Or why a galactic empire build a bad ass armored space station with a planet destroying laser without any decent AA armament and given a serious exploitable weakness? That would be like making a $350 million dollar stealth fighter whose stealth capabilities degrade in high humidity... Oh right.
09/01/09
09/02/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
It's not a big deal. I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home.
09/01/09
There were rebel insurgent groups on many imperial planets. But they were usually local resistance groups, trying only to free that specific world. The Rebel Alliance proper were, as Tagge said, "too well equipped… They're more dangerous than you realize."
They did have the resources to make a handful of chosen specific, precise attacks on high value targets. If they had followed the X-Wing series they'd know that the starfighter fleet was regularly tasked with hit-and-run attacks.
And yes, I am embarrassed I took offense at those papers.
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
09/01/09
The Rebellion wasn't an insurgency for the same reason the Confederacy wasn't. They were one of the factions in a civil war.
Besides, we don't really know what was going on elsewhere. The scope of the viewpoint of the conflict in the original trilogy is pretty limited. We see a frontier backwater, a mining town, and military installations on two remote worlds--one of them an uninhabited icy waste. We don't see what's going on at the major population centers. Maybe there are insurgent bombings every day on Coruscant, but we never see that.
09/01/09
09/01/09