| Author |
Topic:
Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
9/3/07 4:33pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
- Date Edited:
9/3/07 4:34pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Master_Starwalker
|
Great writing Obi-Chron and it does show why FDR felt the bombings were justified. What I think is fascinating is that as you said the US dropping the bombs was an evil and while it's had some horrible impacts such as the immediate and long term death wrought by it, in the end it was important in forming the democratic Japan.
Rossa83 posted:
A quote about evil from Philip K.Dick:
"You and I know there is no such thing as evil. A glass of beer is evil at six in the morning. A dish of mush looks like hell around eight o'clock at night."
So I suppose it all depends on your point of view
I think to an extent that's largely true in the real world(human beings are certainly gray, though I think there are individual actions that are outright evil or good), but I hesitate to apply it to the GFFA.
-----signature-----
"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Wars not make one great." - Yoda
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darth-sinister
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 12:03am
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
The state of gray really applies to ROTS, which was Lucas' way of showing how good can become evil and how that type of mentality sees evil as good. Or more directly, the final exchange between Anakin and Obi-wan over the lava.
Anakin: "I should've known that the Jedi were taking over."
Obi-wan: "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!"
Anakin: "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil."
Obi-wan: "Well, then you are lost!"
In the OT, things are much more simply defined as that was Lucas original intent.
-----signature-----
Stewie: "Oh, this is an even bigger jackpot than when the Emperor
came up with the formula for great Star Wars dialouge."
Palpatine: "Something, something, something. Dark side.
Something, something, something complete."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 12:12am
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
|
Except that Palpatine IS evil and Anakin is wrong.
-----signature-----
"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Wars not make one great." - Yoda
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Chron
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 11:45am
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
Rossa83 posted:
Obi-Chron: Great writing. Did you write that or copy it? If you wrote it you should become a historian 
One thing though: many contest that the war would have been long lived after the time of the a-bombs. Many scholars argue that Japan was on the verge of surrendering simply because they had no more resources. Kamikaze pilots could not fly without planes. Soldiers could not fight without guns. And generally, the fighting spirit was on a low. But other than that, what you say seems good to me.
A quote about evil from Philip K.Dick:
"You and I know there is no such thing as evil. A glass of beer is evil at six in the morning. A dish of mush looks like hell around eight o'clock at night."
So I suppose it all depends on your point of view
Thanks to both you and Master_Skywalker, both for the kind words and, more importantly, the great debate!
I wrote it, but admittedly referenced some things like the # of people killed by the two nukes and the gross human toll during the entire war. And as far the historian part goes -- this stuff just 'floats my boat.' You certainly wouldn't want your kids reading MY version of history.
RE: Japan on the verge of surrender? This is a debate point, yet even the most optomistic historian would admit that the miitary junta that controlled the Japanese government would not accept defeat at any cost, which ultimately equated to more Japanese and allied lives lost. I guess what I'm actually saying is that killing taught us not to kill. Fast forward into the 50s, 60s and 70s, and one could soundly argue that the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the global use of nukes during the Cold War. DId Truman have that lesson in mind when he ordered the nukes dropped? Certainly not, but humanity as a whole learned the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with generally positive results. But the "genie is out of the bottle," and sooner or later the horrors of Japan will become muted or perhaps even lost.
RE: Phillip K. Dick's 'evil' quote . . . sort of supports Palpatine's claim that evil is largely based upon one's point of view. Both Palpatine and Anakin felt that a strong Republic led by a firm ruler would end all conflict. For Anakin, the ends were a bit more altruistic, while for Palpatine they were entirely self-centered. And I believe that Master_Skywalker nails it when he states that " . . . Palpatine is evil and Anakin is wrong."
But were not the Jedi also evil, leading armies of living creatures into war, using human clones like droids to serve the political and financial needs of the Grand Republic? Palpatine's brilliance was in foreseeing that once the Jedi discovered the Clones, he would have galactic events so mucked up that the order would have little choice but to accept them and use them to fight against the separatists. Mace seemed to validate Palpatine's words of caution to Anakin at the Opera that the Jedi also feared losing their millennial power?
As is so often is the case in times of war, it is difficult to choose which side is 'the most' evil. Does evil for the sake of one side's goodness make it a better kind of evil? Anakin struggled mightily with this choice, and when push came to shove, Padme was his tie breaker. Her life tilted the tables to Palpatines side, as the Dark Lord knew all along that it would (while the Jedi did not have a clue until Windu sensed it just before his own death).
-----signature-----
“It is by going down into the abyss that we recover the treasures of life. Where you stumble, there lies your treasure.”
~ Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
darth-sinister
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 11:53am
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
Master_Starwalker posted:
Except that Palpatine IS evil and Anakin is wrong.
Well, yeah, but when you don't see that this is the case it is easy to be confused. Anakin truly believes that he is in the right here and that Palpatine's way is better than the Jedi, since they've had 25,000 years to get it right and they've kept screwing it up. It's time for new blood in his view and if this man can give him what he wants, all the more better.
-----signature-----
Stewie: "Oh, this is an even bigger jackpot than when the Emperor
came up with the formula for great Star Wars dialouge."
Palpatine: "Something, something, something. Dark side.
Something, something, something complete."
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 12:43pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
Obi-Chron posted:
RE: Phillip K. Dick's 'evil' quote . . . sort of supports Palpatine's claim that evil is largely based upon one's point of view. Both Palpatine and Anakin felt that a strong Republic led by a firm ruler would end all conflict. For Anakin, the ends were a bit more altruistic, while for Palpatine they were entirely self-centered. And I believe that Master_Skywalker nails it when he states that " . . . Palpatine is evil and Anakin is wrong."
I'm not entirely sure I agree Anakin's ends were altruistic though given that if his desire was really simply to save Padme's life he wouldn't have constantly focused on himself in relation to her death, instead of something along the lines of "I can't let Padme die because of the toll that would take on the Republic." it's always "I can't live without her." Padme herself seems less worried by his visions that Anakin is.
Obi-Chron posted:
But were not the Jedi also evil, leading armies of living creatures into war, using human clones like droids to serve the political and financial needs of the Grand Republic? Palpatine's brilliance was in foreseeing that once the Jedi discovered the Clones, he would have galactic events so mucked up that the order would have little choice but to accept them and use them to fight against the separatists. Mace seemed to validate Palpatine's words of caution to Anakin at the Opera that the Jedi also feared losing their millennial power?
As is so often is the case in times of war, it is difficult to choose which side is 'the most' evil. Does evil for the sake of one side's goodness make it a better kind of evil? Anakin struggled mightily with this choice, and when push came to shove, Padme was his tie breaker. Her life tilted the tables to Palpatines side, as the Dark Lord knew all along that it would (while the Jedi did not have a clue until Windu sensed it just before his own death).
My disagreements comes in on the idea that the Jedi were leading the Clones for the political and financial needs of the Republic. That was certainly why the Grand Army of the Republic was in the war, but the Jedi it seems to me anyway were in the war as they believed it was the latest front in their long war against the Dark Lords of the Sith. Had the Sith not been involved, the Jedi would likely have taken on the role of ambassadors as they did in the Blockade of Naboo, rather than the role of Generals/Commanders. The Jedi of course are unknowingly furthering the Sith's goals, though their war does eventually force them to try to kill the Chancellor. If the Jedi were solely concerned with the financial and political goals of the Republic they would have stayed loyal to the Chancellor even when they learned what he truly was.
-----signature-----
"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Wars not make one great." - Yoda
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Rossa83
Registered:
Sep '05
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 2:52pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
Obi-Chron posted:
RE: Japan on the verge of surrender? This is a debate point, yet even the most optomistic historian would admit that the miitary junta that controlled the Japanese government would not accept defeat at any cost, which ultimately equated to more Japanese and allied lives lost. I guess what I'm actually saying is that killing taught us not to kill. Fast forward into the 50s, 60s and 70s, and one could soundly argue that the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented the global use of nukes during the Cold War. DId Truman have that lesson in mind when he ordered the nukes dropped? Certainly not, but humanity as a whole learned the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with generally positive results. But the "genie is out of the bottle," and sooner or later the horrors of Japan will become muted or perhaps even lost.
It's a means jusfify the situation. Sometimes they do, but only in the lack of a better option. The US felt forced to use the A-bombs only because they could not come up with a better solution. If you have ever read Watchmen (and you should - fantastic), you have read how the most obscene destruction of a great part of New York is what stops an inevitable nuclear war between USSR and the US. This was orchestrated by the worlds smartest man. His actions disgusted everyone else, but all but one character agrees to his actions as a means to prevent a full scaled war that would end the world. But it was only in the lack of a better option, so it makes you wonder how smart humanity is...
Obi-Chron posted:
RE: Phillip K. Dick's 'evil' quote . . . sort of supports Palpatine's claim that evil is largely based upon one's point of view. Both Palpatine and Anakin felt that a strong Republic led by a firm ruler would end all conflict. For Anakin, the ends were a bit more altruistic, while for Palpatine they were entirely self-centered. And I believe that Master_Skywalker nails it when he states that " . . . Palpatine is evil and Anakin is wrong."
Perhaps Anakin's actions were altruistic on the surface, but no more than that. He wanted the power. He desired being omnipotent. But yes, Palpatine was evil and Anakin was wrong. I think, however, that Lucas has greatly schemed out the grey areas in the conflict of good and evil, sith and Jedi.
Obi-Chron posted:
But were not the Jedi also evil, leading armies of living creatures into war, using human clones like droids to serve the political and financial needs of the Grand Republic? Palpatine's brilliance was in foreseeing that once the Jedi discovered the Clones, he would have galactic events so mucked up that the order would have little choice but to accept them and use them to fight against the separatists. Mace seemed to validate Palpatine's words of caution to Anakin at the Opera that the Jedi also feared losing their millennial power?
I would rather say they were ignorant. Again I could use a novel as example. In Orwell's 1984, O'Brien states that you must not make martyrs. The Jedi never let themselves be martyrs. Had Mace not gone for the kill against Sideous, Anakin would have a harder time justifying his actions. Had the Jedi not used the clones, but rather killed defending what they believed in, Sideous would not have made the population of the Republic hate them. It was finally Luke who became the martyr. He put down his weapon, and in so doing he ignited the one little spark of goodness left in Vader. It was what Palpatine didn't count on and didn't foresee, and thus he failed.
Obi-Chron posted:
As is so often is the case in times of war, it is difficult to choose which side is 'the most' evil. Does evil for the sake of one side's goodness make it a better kind of evil? Anakin struggled mightily with this choice, and when push came to shove, Padme was his tie breaker. Her life tilted the tables to Palpatines side, as the Dark Lord knew all along that it would (while the Jedi did not have a clue until Windu sensed it just before his own death).
So what you're saying is that Anakin felt he had to choose between two evils? I think I can quote OBW: "Then you are lost" to Anakin. 
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Obi-Chron
Registered:
Nov '03
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 5:50pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
- Date Edited:
9/4/07 5:53pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Obi-Chron
|
Rossa83 posted:
Obi-Chron posted:
As is so often is the case in times of war, it is difficult to choose which side is 'the most' evil. Does evil for the sake of one side's goodness make it a better kind of evil? Anakin struggled mightily with this choice, and when push came to shove, Padme was his tie breaker. Her life tilted the tables to Palpatines side, as the Dark Lord knew all along that it would (while the Jedi did not have a clue until Windu sensed it just before his own death).
So what you're saying is that Anakin felt he had to choose between two evils? I think I can quote OBW: "Then you are lost" to Anakin.
And I can quote the dialog between Palpatine and Anakin in the Opera:
"PALPATINE: Good is a point of view, Anakin. And the Jedi point of view is not the only valid one. The Dark Lords of the Sith believe in security and justice also, yet they are considered by the Jedi to be. . .
ANAKIN: . . . evil.
PALPATINE: . . . from a Jedi's point of view."
So it is in war! The victorious side is labeled by their historians as "good."
Now I'm not saying that the Jedi were evil or that the Sith had any worthwhile good in them. I'm saying the Jedi led warrior armies and waged war, which is, as Lucas reminds us, not the jedi way. The Jedi fell from grace, not totally, but just enough over the past millennium or so to allow the Sith to establish the rule of two, fly under the radar and grow in power until we meet upon the Republic at the crucial point in TPM.
So if the Jedi, in Lucas' words, "became corrupted," what is the nature of this corruption? If purity is tainted, it is no longer considered pure. One cannot be 'kind of' a saint. Yoda even admits that the shroud of the dark side "clouds everything," including the powers and minds of the Jedi. Later, in ROTS, he eventually admits that he was blind, that he had failed -- failed in that he let the Jedi serve the evil intentions of the Sith by obeying the orders of their leader, who was leading a double life as Palpatine, yet as chancellor of the Republic Palpatine was ordering about Republic armies (to include our vaunted Jedi) whle pulling the strings (via Dooku and Grievous) of the separatists as well. The 'good' Jedi thus served the cause of evil.
Not until Luke arrives on the scene, defies his Sith father and his father's Sith master, and lays his young life on the line for lost Jedi principles do those Jedi principles become reestablished. This inspires Anakin to return from darkness and fulfill his destiny as the Chosen One. With Luke's unconditional act of redemption and Anakin's unconditional acceptance of his destiny, the pure and good Jedi order once again returned.
-----signature-----
“It is by going down into the abyss that we recover the treasures of life. Where you stumble, there lies your treasure.”
~ Joseph Campbell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
backdeskproductions
Registered:
Aug '07
|
Date Posted:
9/4/07 6:17pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
OK... It seems we're getting a little off course.
Back to my definition of
HEROES: CHARACTERS OF GREAT IMPORTANCE
It is the only reasonable explanation to the Heroes on Both Sides thing because it simply answers the flippin question. It basically states that for both the Republic and the CIS, there were characters of significance which being targeted or not were famous for what they were doing for the war.
REPUBLIC HEROES: Jedi
CIS HEROES: Darth Sidious, General Grievous, Count Dooku
What they did for the war was what made them heroes. Both sides did things that could tag them as characters of great importance (heroes).
If we look back at our high school years and recall the story of Beowulf, we know that Beowulf was a hero, and so was Grendel. Yes, Grendel was an Anti-Hero, but he was still the character of great importance to the story... it classified him as a HERO. Even Grendel's mother was a Hero--- to the story.
Republic or CIS heroes were HEROES because of there significance and GREAT IMPORTANCE TO THE STORY!!!!
Do we understand yet?
-----signature-----
I now have surround sound capabilities!
I just need a project to exploit my newly discovered powers.
Tee hee
-Jon C. Maxwell
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinSucks
Registered:
Sep '05
|
Date Posted:
9/5/07 9:04pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
DarthBoba posted:
Believing it to be just and it actually being just are not the same thing.
It is true that humans have an innate morality. It is a bit sketchy though.
Sketchy enough for POV to tip the balance.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Dark_Jedi_Kenobi
Title: Manager:
• SFF Films & TV
• Prequel Trilogy
Registered:
Oct '04
|
Date Posted:
1/27 5:34pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
|
Upping for recent discussion.
-----signature-----
***Host of the PT Trivia Challenge Game 12: Question 10 Posted!*** http://boards.theforce.net/prequel_trilogy/b10669/23314477/p4/?184
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
1/27 6:53pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
- Date Edited:
1/27 6:53pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Master_Starwalker
|
|
There are heroes on both sides, but the heroes who fight for the Confederacy are never on-screen. They're the unknown resistance fighter who is trying to bring freedom to his planet. Every Separatist of any importance however is a villain.
-----signature-----
"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Wars not make one great." - Yoda
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
jedibri
Registered:
Jul '00
|
Date Posted:
1/28 2:37am
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
|
He meant that both sides have hero's. Look both sides believe in what they were fighting for. So they both had their versions of hero's.
-----signature-----
Jesus says "Unless your attitude is that of a Child you will not enter Heaven."
That's why I'm glad he gave me Star Wars.
It always reminds me of my childhood.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Master_Starwalker
Registered:
Sep '03
|
Date Posted:
1/28 4:32pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
|
Yet they're not all correct. Palpatine believed in what he did and yet he was unequivocally a villain.
-----signature-----
"You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting." - Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Wars not make one great." - Yoda
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DARTHCLANDESTINE
Registered:
May '05
|
Date Posted:
1/28 6:04pm
Subject:
RE: Heroes on BOTH sides?
|
We can go back to the scroll on where it says "evil is everywhere". In other words, each side may have heros but they have a skewered view of each other that each is "evil" in their own right.
-----signature-----
The Force has two sides. It is not a malevolent or a benevolent thing. It has a bad side to it, involving hate and fear, and it has a good side, involving love, charity, fairness and hope -- George Lucas
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
