Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Don't want to get too sidetracked here with real history here but who shot first is faily irrelevant to my point. The point is the war was fought over succession.

Secession guys, is secession, or as we call it here, the War of Northern Aggression. And yes, I'm one of those guys with family on both sides, even found the restign place of one at Shiloh.

Grey Templar wrote:Succession probably is a good enough reason.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The point is the war was fought over succession.

I know you guys meant secession, but your misspelling may be MORE accurate. The war may in fact have been about the CIS gaining recognition as an independent state.

 sebster wrote:
you continue to miss is that 'no reason is presented clearly therefore it was illegal'

You are misstating my position or else simply clarifying that you don't understand it. I'm not concluding the war was illegal because no justification is presented. I am simply pointing out that no justification was presented and that justifications presented in this thread are speculative rather than based on evidence from the movies, books, etc. And further: this is something that really needed to be explained. Because given the lack of explanation, it is strange that there is no protest. That is, the story makes less sense because of this major plot hole.

This is because the Star Wars movies are not windows into an internally consistent alternate history where there are reasons for what happens even if those reasons are not apparent. No, Star Wars is a story not an independent world; what is not presented does not exist until it is presented. Please don't confuse my criticism of a story with some kind of multidimensional political opinion.

What you are doing, by contrast, is confusing a lack of evidence for evidence:

 sebster wrote:
'no reason was presented clearly but there probably was one'

In fact, there is not one. Again, this is because Star Wars is just what we see on the screen or read in the books and comics; it is not an alternate reality. If, as I have found, no one writing these movies, books, comics, etc, bothers to create a justification for the Clone Wars then there simply isn't one.

To use another example, no one ever explains exactly how lightsabers work, either. Following your logic we'd have to say something like, well, they clearly nonetheless work so there must be an explanation as to how. In fact, there is not. This is because lightsabers are fictional. The point of lightsabers is completely narrative (i.e., to associate the Jedi with romantic knightly/samurai imagery) and therefore it is completely unnecessary to ever get into the nitty gritty of how they function.

The same cannot be said for the legality of the Clone Wars. The politics of the Clone Wars is of central importance to the story about how Palpatine transforms the Republic into the Empire, which is itself one of the main themes of the prequel movies. It is therefore narratively important to consider whether the Clone Wars actually had any legal basis or was merely an arbitrary act of a dictator. If it was the latter, which is all we have evidence for, then it is also important to consider why everyone -- seemingly, most of all the Jedi -- went along with it, which leads us right back to the question of a legal basis.

Like many aspects of the prequel story of Palpatine taking over the Republic and fooling the Jedi, this strikes me as a matter of Lucas & Co. "telling and not showing," so to speak. Just like Anakin and Padme's "love" for each other, the Clone Wars are just shoved down the audiences faces. Usually, some intrepid EU rationalizations come to the rescue here ... and in this case, we have two TV shows, tons of comics and novels, even some video games BUT none of them seem to bother. Or really can bother. It's a big question; I doubt the EU licensees are even allowed to deal with it, lest they offend George:

"Um, Mr. Lucas, there's a gaping plot hole my team would like to address ..."

 Platuan4th wrote:
The war may in fact have been about the CIS gaining recognition as an independent state.

By whom? The Republic seems to recognize them as such by virtue of the war, which is after all not described as a civil war just as the separatists are never described as rebels.

 Manchu wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:
The war may in fact have been about the CIS gaining recognition as an independent state.

By whom? The Republic seems to recognize them as such by virtue of the war, which is after all not described as a civil war just as the separatists are never described as rebels.

Not necessarily. They never refer to the CIS as a nation or state in the movies. They tend to be referred to as the Separatists, like they were a movement within the government. It's much like calling the southern states as Secessionists. The entire reason for naming them the Confederacy of Independent States was to draw the parallel with the ACW.

A very weak parallel considering they are only called the CIS in the crawl and no one ever mentioned the much more significant terms "rebel" or "civil war." Furthermore, it is clear that they are not a faction within the Republic. They have no presence in the Galactic Senate and even have their own parliament.

One thing that confuses the issue even further is that, for the purposes of making them seem like aggressors and therefore bad guys in the show, they are shown invading non-Separatists planets. That would have been a great plot device in Attack of the Clones but unfortunately what actually happened was the Republic invaded a Separatist world.

 Manchu wrote:
Even setting aside the strange notion that faulty (or even accurate) conceptions of American history tell us anything about Star Wars, the movies provide no reason to believe that secession is a good enough reason to declare war. As mentioned earlier, the infrastructure of the Republic does not (necessarily) reach down to the system level. Put it another way, there is no evidence that the Republic is itself a sovereign polity or just a club for sovereigns. In fact, I'd argue that's potentially a significant point of tension surrounding the Military Creation Act.

The very fact war occured seems to be proof enough that secession is a good enough reason to declare war. Also, there is a galactic senate so there does seem to be a representatice goverment.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Succession probably is a good enough reason.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The point is the war was fought over succession.

I know you guys meant secession, but your misspelling may be MORE accurate. The war may in fact have been about the CIS gaining recognition as an independent state.

I blame auto correct.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:Succession probably is a good enough reason.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The point is the war was fought over succession.

I know you guys meant secession, but your misspelling may be MORE accurate. The war may in fact have been about the CIS gaining recognition as an independent state.

I blame auto correct.

I blame....my bad spelling.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The very fact war occured seems to be proof enough that secession is a good enough reason to declare war.

Not really. The Republic did not declare war upon the Separatists declaring secession, after all. But even so, that line of thought is based on confusing the lack of evidence with evidence.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Also, there is a galactic senate so there does seem to be a representatice goverment.

Like the UN?

 Manchu wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
The very fact war occured seems to be proof enough that secession is a good enough reason to declare war.

Not really. The Republic did not declare war upon the Separatists declaring secession, after all. But even so, that line of thought is based on confusing the lack of evidence with evidence.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
Also, there is a galactic senate so there does seem to be a representatice goverment.

Like the UN?

So it's more that, like Han, the idea The Republic shot first that's tripping you up? Well according to this thing: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Confederacy_of_Independent_Systems is was because the CIS sentenced our some Jedi to death which caused a big flare up and then war. Still the cause for all the tension was separatism.

Yes, like the UN. Or perhaps more like the EU Parlimanent. As I said before in KOTOR they describe The Republic as a loose confederation that only has agreed to use the same currency. However, that's like 4,000 years before episode 1. Imagine a scenario were 4,000 year from now the EU Pariliment has become more powerful than the national goverments. I think that's what happened to The Republic. Gradually, then suddenly. The sudden part being the Clone Wars themselves and the creation of the Grand Army of the Republic.

It is like America a bit. I believe early on many states thought of the federal goverment as something that doesn't have much power like the EU parliment but then they tested that and there was a big old civil war and the federal goverment's power was greatly increased after that.

I know real life comparisons irritate you but I'm not saying they are exact metaphors but I find it easier to explain what I'm saying with real life examples.

As already mentioned ITT, Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan were being executed because they were caught red-handed in the act of espionage. So if the Jedi Council and the Republic wanted to save these guys, well fine, but there's no pretending the prisoners were not engaged in belligerent actions. Also, total war is not a proportionate response to three spies being executed, especially on the part of the Jedi who say again and again that they are peace keepers and not soldiers.

As to the real life metaphors, we know (given the example of Naboo) that US federalism is not a good metaphor for the relationship between the Republic and its members.

 Manchu wrote:
As already mentioned ITT, Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan were being executed because they were caught red-handed in the act of espionage. So if the Jedi Council and the Republic wanted to save these guys, well fine, but there's no pretending the prisoners were not engaged in belligerent actions. Also, total war is not a proportionate response to three spies being executed, especially on the part of the Jedi who say again and again that they are peace keepers and not soldiers.

As to the real life metaphors, we know (given the example of Naboo) that US federalism is not a good metaphor for the relationship between the Republic and its members.

I said it wasn't. The point was The Republic's goverment had become more centralized.

It's been a while since I saw Phantom Menace but how were they engaged in belligerent espionoge?

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As already mentioned ITT, Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan were being executed because they were caught red-handed in the act of espionage. So if the Jedi Council and the Republic wanted to save these guys, well fine, but there's no pretending the prisoners were not engaged in belligerent actions. Also, total war is not a proportionate response to three spies being executed, especially on the part of the Jedi who say again and again that they are peace keepers and not soldiers.

As to the real life metaphors, we know (given the example of Naboo) that US federalism is not a good metaphor for the relationship between the Republic and its members.

I said it wasn't. The point was The Republic's goverment had become more centralized.

It's been a while since I saw Phantom Menace but how were they engaged in belligerent espionoge?

You mean Attack of the Clones.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As already mentioned ITT, Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan were being executed because they were caught red-handed in the act of espionage. So if the Jedi Council and the Republic wanted to save these guys, well fine, but there's no pretending the prisoners were not engaged in belligerent actions. Also, total war is not a proportionate response to three spies being executed, especially on the part of the Jedi who say again and again that they are peace keepers and not soldiers.

As to the real life metaphors, we know (given the example of Naboo) that US federalism is not a good metaphor for the relationship between the Republic and its members.

I said it wasn't. The point was The Republic's goverment had become more centralized.

It's been a while since I saw Phantom Menace but how were they engaged in belligerent espionoge?

You mean Attack of the Clones.

Ya, just realized that. Anyway, sticking with secession is a good enough reason for both sides.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As already mentioned ITT, Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan were being executed because they were caught red-handed in the act of espionage. So if the Jedi Council and the Republic wanted to save these guys, well fine, but there's no pretending the prisoners were not engaged in belligerent actions. Also, total war is not a proportionate response to three spies being executed, especially on the part of the Jedi who say again and again that they are peace keepers and not soldiers.

As to the real life metaphors, we know (given the example of Naboo) that US federalism is not a good metaphor for the relationship between the Republic and its members.

I said it wasn't. The point was The Republic's goverment had become more centralized.

It's been a while since I saw Phantom Menace but how were they engaged in belligerent espionoge?

You mean Attack of the Clones.

They sent operatives to a planet without that world's permission, with the purpose of gaining information on that world's military and industry.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As already mentioned ITT, Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan were being executed because they were caught red-handed in the act of espionage. So if the Jedi Council and the Republic wanted to save these guys, well fine, but there's no pretending the prisoners were not engaged in belligerent actions. Also, total war is not a proportionate response to three spies being executed, especially on the part of the Jedi who say again and again that they are peace keepers and not soldiers.

As to the real life metaphors, we know (given the example of Naboo) that US federalism is not a good metaphor for the relationship between the Republic and its members.

I said it wasn't. The point was The Republic's goverment had become more centralized.

It's been a while since I saw Phantom Menace but how were they engaged in belligerent espionoge?

You mean Attack of the Clones.

They sent operatives to a planet without that world's permission, with the purpose of gaining information on that world's military and industry.

Well, they were up to something...

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As already mentioned ITT, Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan were being executed because they were caught red-handed in the act of espionage. So if the Jedi Council and the Republic wanted to save these guys, well fine, but there's no pretending the prisoners were not engaged in belligerent actions. Also, total war is not a proportionate response to three spies being executed, especially on the part of the Jedi who say again and again that they are peace keepers and not soldiers.

As to the real life metaphors, we know (given the example of Naboo) that US federalism is not a good metaphor for the relationship between the Republic and its members.

I said it wasn't. The point was The Republic's goverment had become more centralized.

It's been a while since I saw Phantom Menace but how were they engaged in belligerent espionoge?

You mean Attack of the Clones.

They sent operatives to a planet without that world's permission, with the purpose of gaining information on that world's military and industry.

Well, they were up to something...

Doesn't matter.
They still did not have permission to land on that world, and they weren't at war with them (yet).

Was Genosis even part of the Republic's jurisdiction? I couldn't find anything that said they were part of the Republic.

It's also silly that the Republic invaded Genosis over their spies getting captured.
Covert Ops are meant to be subtle and clandestine, after all, and galaxy wide wars tend to go against that.
That would be like the US nuking Russia because Agent 232 was captured after tripping over his shoelaces in front of a Siberian Husky.

I think they invaded for the purpose of destroying that droid army. Not sure about Geonosis ever being a part of the Republic I have a feeling they never were.

The big problem with the Clone Wars being legal or not is that Lucas is an awesome idea man, but a horrible writer- and all his underlings are just yes-men. So you get a mess of a trilogy that has to rush towards the end to not only give tons of fan service, but awkwardly tie up all the loose ends before "a New Hope".

The two videos abut how the guy would re-write the first two prequel movies would have made for some really fun Star Wars movies.

IIRC, the Trade Federation was officially in control of Geonosis. And the Trade Federation did have representation on the Republic Senate, so I would think that the Senate would have every legal right to dispatch Jedi to that world.

Wasn't the Trade Federation part of the CIS by that time?

 Manchu wrote:
You are misstating my position or else simply clarifying that you don't understand it. I'm not concluding the war was illegal because no justification is presented. I am simply pointing out that no justification was presented and that justifications presented in this thread are speculative rather than based on evidence from the movies, books, etc. And further: this is something that really needed to be explained.

Oh for feth's sake. Have you actually read what I've been typing?

"To clarify, the issue with the Clone War is not that it contradicts itself, but that so little of the important elements of its build up actually happened on screen, so we are simply left to guess."
"And both sides of that speculation are really just dancing around the actual problem - that a key part of the story is simply not told. We should not be left to speculate as to why one of the key events in the fall of the Republic happened."
"actual problem is that we are left to speculate at all about the causes of the war. It is information that should have been presented clearly."

So, to say it once again - the issue is not that we can conclude the war was illegal... the issue is that we have no clue as to the legal or moral basis for the war, leaving us to speculate on something that really should have been clearly presented in the film.

 Frazzled wrote:
Because the one you think of best: (Vader vs. Luke in ESB) was directed by someone else, and its done like Luke is trying to cut Vader in half, or later, like he's trying not to die.

I will admit I liked the Darth Maul fight, up to Liam Neeson's death (then it becomes stupid). I'd make it #3 behind the above and then Vader / Alec Guinness. The SW duel is not actually very good, but the acting is excellent and the buildup, perfection. Plus the conversation in fight is bandido level macho.

I think the direction probably has a lot to do with it.

And I liked the Darth Maul fight the first time I saw it, simply because it was unlike anything we'd ever seen before. The Jedi in their prime, the saberstaff, etc. Any time I've seen it since, I've liked it less. There's just way too many obvious misses, too many times when guys hold their sticks out to get it hit, and so on.

They need to copy Malgus' style from the TOR trailers. Dude's always trying to kill you. That's a duel I'd watch.

I suppose we could also assume that Lucas made a conscious decision to leave the legality of the Clone Wars ambiguous so as to further highlight the corruption of the Jedi and the Senate. The Jedi Council is clearly a creature of the Senate via the office of the Supreme Chancellor. Despite whatever personal misgivings certain Jedi may harbor as individuals, the institution of the Jedi takes for granted the legitimacy of the Supreme Chancellor and the Senate. Something similar can be said for the Senate, which is itself more and more the creature of the Supreme Chancellor -- so much so that by ANH, the Emperor can summarily disband the Senate. I guess Lucas could be trying to depict a suspicion of institutions and how they infringe on the individual capacity to act. It's not just the Jedi who fail to question the legality of the Clone Wars; we never hear a peep from Bail Organa, Mon Mothma, or Padme Amidala. Even though they eventually lobby for Palpatine to give up his emergency powers, they do not seem to seriously question how he uses them. And of course the most important evidence for this theory is that the Jedi are absolutely blind to Palpatine's identity as a Sith Lord precisely because of his other identities as a Senator and then as the Supreme Chancellor.

I don't think the Jedi being corrupt was Lucas' authorial intent even if that's how it comes off to some people.

Yeah, I didn't get corrupt from the Jedi so much as set in their ways, archaic, and disconnected from the modern galaxy at large.

 Platuan4th wrote:
set in their ways, archaic, and disconnected from the modern galaxy at large

That's what I mean by corrupt.

 KamikazeCanuck wrote:
I don't think the Jedi being corrupt was Lucas' authorial intent even if that's how it comes off to some people.

There is textual evidence of it, however, all the way from Qui-Gon Jin's insistance on the Living Force and rift with the Jedi Council to Mace Windu's comment that the Jedi's ability to use the Force has diminished.

So do you mean politically corrupt or corrupt like the force powers are waning?

I mean corrupt in the sense of not being pure; they have lost their way. They don't seem to understand their own tradition because they have become part of an external tradition, that of galactic politics. They traded in being monks for being civil servants.

The Jedi have been intrinsically linked to The Republic through it's entire history. I don't think there were "good 'ole days" when they weren't involved in galactic affairs.