Saga Popular support for the Empire

Lord Tyrannus, you are really testing the forum's patience here. I am not the first person to tell you this and I will not be the last.
Like Valairy Scot said, I will be trying to stop responding to your posts because, as stated above, debates with you are pointless because you refuse to consider the points and FACTS we make.
The second part of the above post is also true. How are we supposed to answer your wild fan speculation when it is WILD FAN SPECULATION? There are what-ifs for every single moment in the saga. Nobody wants to continue this weirdness.
Many of your questions are easily answered by the EU. You have told me that you are not interested in learning anything EU. That is fine, but you ask questions that can only be answered by the EU, you then do not accept these answers, and you test our patience with your attitude. Why do you ask if you don't seem willing to learn? If you want to know the answer to a question, you must be receptive to answers that people are providing to you out of no obligation to you. We're trying to be nice. We also like respect.

 

I am not trying to argue. I also am not asking what if questions, but rather, was this event in the series responsible for another event, or a character's motive, which can be interperted as a what if question. I do read the EU, and I changed my mind about it. I actually do enjoy the EU. I don't want to argue about anything.

 

Your stance has changed multiple times over the past few days. I hope this new, very slightly better phase lasts.

 

Valairy Scot, why are you making assumptions about my worldviews? Please define to me the meaning of a "a world based solely on a push-pull, action-reactions"????

As I'd had said earlier, I do not believe in retaliation four the sake of retaliation in and of itself. I only support retaliation if it prevents innocent peoples against future's sufferings. But, then again, fighting during/in wars for the greater good can be a very confusing ordeal. Do ends ever even justify the means??? Ahh, so many controversial philosophical/moral/political/religious debates that can result/that can arise out of discussing wars, just wars or otherwise!!!

Wasn't Darth Sidious/Emperor Palpatine always talking about "i have foreseen this"????

 

If the democratic state itself is corrupted or oppressive, is it still evil to get rid of it?

 

Would it be evil to get rid of the inept US gov't?

Okay - that would make this way off topic.

It's going to be slow, but it is generally better to reform a democratic state than "get rid of it" which usually implies violent overthrow. Why: it's the more fanatical fringes that are more likely to overthrow a government (they're the most dissatisfied as a general rule) yet they often have no idea how to actually govern *and/or* aren't willing to compromise with others who don't share their vision.

And democracy, at heart, is accomodating different views.

 

But there was already no democracy, so long before even this scene. Liberty did not die with a thunderous applause, the lack of the titles of nobility (to quote our united states of american's constitution) did!!! I can be more specific if you want me to be more specific, Valairy Scot!!!

 

It might make the posts less abrasive if they didn't have so many exclamation marks at once.

 

It's is just my obessive compulsive disorder, and besides, dude, I'm am gradually trying to stop/to end that once and for all, notice that how I'm am doing that a bit much less, now dude??

 

Better.

Palpatine's foresight didn't always match his senses- he claimed to have "foreseen" Luke coming to Vader- but he didn't sense that Luke was on-planet at the time, though Vader did.

 

i would figure that the empire would have some popular support after the battle of endor and the establishment of the new republic there was still an imperial remmant

 

In the EU

 

About why the DS was built.

Palpatine didn't build it because of the rebels, either from a vision or due to the active rebellion.
Why? Because of the disbanding of the Senate. If the DS was only ever intended to be used against the rebels why disband the senate?
The answer is obvious, the imperial senate existed from RotS up to ANH. It had less power than before but still had some influence.
The senate and it s bureocracy was also a way to mantain controll, as one imperial officer says.
But once the DS was complete then Palpatine disbanded the senate and the regional governors now had direct controll over their territories. As Tarkin said, "Fear will keep the local systems in line." And he isn't talking about the rebels here as another officer imideatly asks "And what of the rebellion?"

So the answer is clear, when he didn't have the DS, Palpatine allowed a semblance of democracy to exist, the senate did have some power and the imperial forces had to tread with some care. But once he had the DS, then away with any democracy and now he intended to rule with fear. Any system that protested, BOOM. Once he had destroyed ten or so planets, the rest will have learned to keep quiet.

So the Empire is indeed evil and not just Palpatine, Tarkin destroyed a whole planet, killing billions, just as an object lesson.
Other imperial officers were eager to use the DS, so they were looking forward to killing billions.
Also the fear that normal people show the stroomtroopers isn't just that they were down there looking for something. That fear is due to their reputation, people knew not to interfere with the soldiers of the empire.
Rights and liberties had been going away under the empires rule and with the DS, the last pretense of democracy and benevolent rule were gone. Now it was a rule through "Do as I say or I'll kill you and destroy your entire planet."

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

The Death Star was just a weapon of mass destruction, just like a nuclear missile. It was certainly used for evil, but the mere possession of such a weapon does not automatically make the Empire murderous tyrants. Besides, orbital bombardments could cause mass devastation on a planet's surface, the DS was just more... efficient.

 

Nope. Nowhere in the films is it stated or even implied that the Battle of Endor would cause the Empire to cease to exist. Remember the Moffs that exercise control over the galaxy on the Emperor's behalf? (Tarkin, ANH) Where is it stated in ROTJ that the fleet assembled to take on the Rebels at Endor constitutes the entire Imperial military? Remember that the Stormtroopers on Endor are described by the Emperor as "an entire legion of my best men". If the Endor forces were only one legion of the 'best men', then that implies that there were other legions stationed elsewhere. The Emperor's tone and emphasis - "an entire legion" further suggests that a legion was a large number of troops.

The only thing 'EU-canon' about the existence of the Imperial Remnant is the actual name Imperial Remnant. The continued existence of some form of the Empire post-Endor is fully supported by the films.

Plus remember its variable-power abilities. Its use at low-power, faster-recycle settings to take out Rebel capital ships at Endor for example.

 

But the DS was created with the intent that is SHOULD be used. It was the ultimate weapon of terror, a way to keep all the planets in line and not dare question the emperors command. Tarkin was in part looking for a demonstration, a planet to blow up to show the galaxy that the empire now had the means to totally destroy a planet. Tarkin destroyed Alderaan because he felt that Dantooine was to remote to make an effective demonstration.
So I think this does make the empire into murderous tyrants because they made a weapon with the full intent of using it to create terror and fear.

With the A-bomb, at first some of those involved didn't fully understand or comprehend it's destructive power. The Empire knew fully well just what the DS could do and how they were going to use it.

Bye for now.
The Guarding Dark

 

Maybe the Empire promised cookies and pizza?

 

They were hiding WMD. But they couldn't find them. So the Emperor proclaimed the Doctrine of Preemption.

 

What do you mean by non-biased? Star Wars is a fictional universe not a real one, and the Empire can be as good or as evil as the author(s) say it is.

 

You cannot be non biased about an evil dictatorship taking over the galaxy.

 

Given that the hijacker of this thread has been long banned and won't be coming back, but people are still responding to his posts, I'm locking this thread.

If anyone wants to discuss the original topic, please feel free to start a new thread.