PT The morality and ethics of using a clone army: The Official Thread

I think think there are also some other simple explanations for the clones' acceptance that aren't usually brought up.

Palpatine plotted to bring the clones army into the Republic from the start, and there's a powerful faction of senators who want the Republic to militarize (the very thing that Padme was trying to debate against in the beginning of the movie). He must've had some kind of end game for doing that out in the open, when the time was right. The way that Obi-Wan discovered the clones was a pure accident, and definitely not something that Palpatine had counted on happening. Perhaps some of those pro-military senators (paid off or otherwise subservient to Palpatine) would come out, and admit to using black budgets to fund the Republic's army. "Yeah, we did it. And it's a good thing that we did!"

After all, the Kaminoans themselves tell Obi-Wan that the clone army had been ordered on behalf of the Senate. The Kaminoans were completely friendly to Obi-Wan, even telling him to report their work to the Jedi Council and come back again. Not the behavior of people who are conspiring against the Republic. Obi-Wan, a Jedi who can sense evil intentions and who is trained to rely on his Force-guided instincts, saw no ill intention from them.

The fact that Jango Fett was fighting for the Separatists was definitely not a good thing when it came to passing off the conspiracy (I thought he was a fan-servicey addition myself). But it's not an automatic giveaway either, in light of the Kaminoans' proven loyalty. Jango had a history of being a mercenary, so it wasn't out of the question to think that he had simply betrayed the Kaminoans and sold out to the Separatists. Jango wasn't even the one who created and raised the clones either, his role basically boild down to "DNA doner."

And, as you explained, war is a time for action, not questions. The Jedi pressed the clones into service at a minute's notice, because they absolutely had to. The second-to-last scene of the movie makes it clear that they're suspicious of someone involved with the Senate (again it keeps going back to the Senate), but they don't have a smoking gun and there's still a war to fight.

 

Oops posted too soon, sorry about that.

No I was not talking about if this was possible or not, why did you make that assumption?
I was responding to other comments in this thread that were talking about how human the clones were. Some argued that they are ordinary humans that hava had lots of training and conditioning. Others called them "droids with flesh". My comment was their DNA have been altered, how much is not clear, but my point was that if you change human DNA enough then it would no longer be human. Some used Boba as an example but i commented that Boba was just a copy of Jango and has not had any of the DNA modification that the other clones had. Lastly I asked open questions just how much free will the clones have. Could they disobey orders, could they even consider disobeying orders? Could a clone be freed, would a clone even WANT to be free?

Regards
Nordom

 

Really, so take the EU and say that Denmark wants to leave then it would be reasonable for the others to gather up an army and attack and conquer Denmark?
Or take the United Nations, if say Norway want to leave then rest of the UN would declare war on Norway?
No question, using military Force to keep an empire together has happened but in many cases that proved to be a temporary solution and the empire collapsed anyway.

The republic seems to be a collection of sovergin planets that have come together and have some laws in common and a common currency. But is the republic instead just one nation? We know that other systems exist outside the republic and their existence did not destroy or unbalance the republic. So if one or a dozen planets would want to leave is it really the best option to attack them? Wouldn't this create even more anger and make others question the republic? Could the republic survive with one half conquering and enslaving the other half?

If by combat you mean fighting by themselves then yes, if you mean strategy and tactics then the "tactics" they used in the arena makes me say no. They Jedi displayed an almost total lack of military thinking and strategy there and lost badly mostly due to their own stupidity. Jumping down and letting yourself get surrounded, real smart.
The Jedi themselves admit they are no soldiers.

What other armed Forces? From what AotC says it seems the Republic has none. Mace only talks about Jedi protecting the republic, no mention of other Forces. The seps want to attack the republic and their army will overrun the Jedi and then the Republic is theirs, again no mention of other Forces. Also the seps are totally suprised that the republic could gather an army of 200 000 soldiers and a dozen ships in a short amount of time.
They even called it a "huge" army. The total armed Force on Earth is something like 25 million men and a galatic civ. would be hard pressed to gather up 200 000 soldiers?

Well the almost total lack of questions and blind acceptance is simply too much to me, it makes the Jedi and the senate look like morons. And the Jedi did have time to do further digging before the war broke out. Like sending a few more Jedi to Kamino while Obi-Wan chased after Jango. But apparently they did not bother. They did not even seem interested in fidning out who actually ordered this army or why. It smacks of plot contrivance to me, the plot needs this to happen so the character does whatever the plot requires of them, regardless if it makes any sense or not.

As for Taun-We's

 

Take the US congress, would they really prefer to give away all their power to the President and letting him do whatever he wants rather than passing ONE controverial bill?
In my experience, politicians are often reluctant to give away power.

Well I took the phrase "Anti-slavery laws" to mean that slavery is illegal in the republic. That you can not own slaves or run a slavery ring. A person could possibly leave the republic and buy a slave and this would be outside this law. But if he or she brings this slave back to the republic then the law would take effect.
If the law only aplies to republic citizens in every way then it means that it is only illegal to enslave another republic citizen but anyone else is fair game.
I have a hard time seeing this law meaning that you can keep any amount of slave In the republic as long as those slave are not republic citizens.

Regards
Nordom

 

I made the assumption because you seemed to imply it may not be possible to genetically alter human beings to make them more docile without fundamentally altering their code to the point of creating a new species (though you could, in part or in whole, still be correct about that). I then went on to address your other questions (albeit, perhaps, somewhat tangentially). The problem with the definition of species is that the point where one species ends and another begins is somewhat open to interpretation. The explicit boundary between one species and the next is often hard to define; indeed, in many senses, the boundary is somewhat nebulous and doesn't really exist. So, in part, this becomes an ontological, and not strictly a biological or technological, matter. The subsequent questions you pose about free will and disobedience are also difficult to answer because they are largely, if not purely, speculative. We are not shown clones disobeying orders; therefore, it is hard to judge. However, given that there is a spark of creativity in the clones, and that clones clearly form opinions on things (e.g., view the scene of one clone reporting to another about Obi-Wan's tumble in the aftermath of the Order 66 sequence: "Sir, there's no way anyone could have survived that fall"), I can well imagine the potential for free choice and disobedience. However, to what extent, and when, is something we are given little to no evidence to work from. The matter is left obscure due to the way the films present the clones. This seems willful. AOTC, the entry in which the eponymous clone army is introduced, begins with a mystery (of which the clones form a key part), and literally opens with a scene set in dense fog. There's a certain opacity here. But what's interesting is that no-one in the Republic, including the Jedi, seems to really question what they're up to. But again, we are deliberately not privy to all the facts.

I dunno. The films seem geared to bait people into asking these questions. The Republic does not immediately set out to attack the separatists. Palpatine creates a situation which grows progressively worse, causing more systems to break away from the hegemony of the Republic. At some point, due to what may be con

 

The analogy about Denmark wanting to leave the EU doesn't hold. The European Union is not a sovereign state, but an association of different nations. It's pretty strange to even question the Republic's opposition to separatism. Fighting against secession is pretty much what any country on Earth would do. The United States is no exception. AOTC even references the American Civil War, with its "Grand Army of the Republic."

Going back to the Original Trilogy, planets (or groups of planets) seem to have some degree of autonomy without being fully independent. For example, Leia was the princess of Alderaan even though the Galactic Empire clearly ruled above all else. The Empire is the successor to the Republic, so I would think that the Republic also served as some kind of supreme federal government.

 

Well said. A major theme of the prequels is that the Republic is in decline, plagued by corruption and weak enforcement of the law. Its ideals vulnerable to subversion, because everyone is fearful and more willing to do the easy or practical thing. What's "legal" in the Republic is clearly inconsistent, if not downright irrelevant. TPM showed how disinterested the Senate was in simply defending the safety of one of its member worlds.

This theme is timeless, and comparisons have been made to the fall of the Roman Empire as well as the Nazis' rise to power. But an easier (though not better) way to illustrate the point is to look at the recent decade's war on terror. Technically, it may not be legal to detain a suspect in a military prison indefinitely, without any charges. Or water board them for intelligence. Or terminate an American citizen (Anwar Al-Awlaki) who's preaching for terrorists, without due process of the law. I don't know, I'm not a legal expert. Complaints about those things have been made though. But many people either accept those things or understand the practical reasons for doing them. Fears about the Patriot Act and the country's declining freedoms were a part of the public consciousness, during the years when AOTC and ROTS were made.

 

The "Grand Army of the Republic" is also pitted against the forces of the "Confederacy of Independent Systems", strengthening the American Civil War parallel. These desriptors, in a way, become a kind of short-hand for the social and political ideas that Lucas is communicating, in service of a broader mythological story.

To throw a spanner in the works, however: how much real power Princess Leia had is questionable. She may just have been a figurehead to begin with. Something like a ruling-feminine ideal in a municipal society (whose autonomy has been slowly eroded by increasing capitulation to an increasingly-ruthless government). On the other hand, it seems pretty clear in the PT that, in order to enjoy Republic protection and prosperity (what little of it is afforded to them), planets/systems had to agree to cede certain of their customs and traditions, amongst other things, so the "empire" was always there, waiting for its moment. But there remain contradictions.

 

As far as I can tell, the SW "Republic" is a collective of thousands of sovereign planetary systems, much the same as the EU is a collective of sovereign nations. I think the parallel can certainly be drawn.

There have been many examples of peaceful secessions in Earth's history. Czechoslovakia split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia via peaceful referendum. The Soviet Union dissolved back into into independent countries without a war. Norway gained independence from Sweden via peaceful referendum. The list goes on.

 

But the way they talk about secession in AOTC, it's clear that they regard the various planets as Republic territory. When Palpatine declares himself Emperor in ROTS, he's doing it on the premise of preserving the Republic. The Senators cheer him on; nobody reacts as if he'll be conquering their planets and annexing them into the Empire. Which is what he'd have to do, if those planets were in fact independent sovereign systems, truly free from the Republic's rule. It was instead treated like a reorganization of the existing government.

Peaceful splits can happen, but most countries would not accept secession. Also, AOTC did not portray a peaceful secession movement. The Separatists built a massive army with the intention of overwhelming the Republic, and tried to execute a sitting Republic Senator.

 

In TPM Padme is the elected ruler of Naboo, the ruler of Naboo are apparently the one who appoints senators so they have a fair amount of power. As was said, the SW galaxy could be seen as an EU in space in that it is a collection of sovergin systems working together.
No doubt there are laws that apply to all member worlds but each planet seem to have it's own rulers and some of it's own laws.

The republic was formed/reformed 1000 years ago (but it is much older than that) was this done by choice? In the following 1000 years have there ever been systems that have wanted to join the republic? Lets say that there has been but are the membership rules really "Once you join the republic you can never, ever leave and if you try to leave we will use deadly force to stop you!"?

At the start of AotC some systems want to leave the republic, the separatists. In response to this some in the senate wants to create an army and use the threat of this army or actual military force to stop them from leaving. Others are not in favour of an army and would rather talk with the seps and persuade them not leave.
But seemingly the alternative of them simply leaving in peace does not seem to be an option. Why? I can understand that this would be seen as bad by those that want to keep the republic together but is really military force the best option?

Lastly about the seps army. At the start AotC seem to mix between two scenarios, the seps simply leaving and the seps attacking. They are called separatists so the name implies that they want to leave. But Mace talks like they will attack at any time. So I was wondering, do the seps simply want to leave or do they want to attack? But in any event the droid army that Dooku was building on Geonosis was not known. The seps intent to attack also did not seem to be known. If the senate DID know that the seps WERE planing to attack then Padme and others resitance to the clone army is stupid. She know first hand what happens when someone with a big army attacks somone without an army so why would she be so opposed to be able to defend against an enemy she KNOWS will attack?

Regards
Nordom

 

You may believe the Galactic Republic is a "European Union in space", but the leaders of the Republic in AOTC and ROTS evidently do not. Among the Republic Loyalists are the senators representing Naboo and Alderaan.

When you think about what the Separatists actually do, the parallels to the Confederate States of America become clearer. They are secretly controlled by a shadowy group of corporations and cartels, analogous to the slavers who ruled the CSA. Since TPM, a wedge has been driven between these interests and the central government under Chancellor Palpatine, who comes to power as reformist on a wave of sympathy due to his planet's oppression by the Trade Federation. After seceding, the Separatists do not simply become separate nations like the states of the former USSR, establishing close relations with the rump federation. They establish a rival federation to the Republic, motivated purely by political interests, be they benign (in the case of the "good Separatists" glimpsed in The Clone Wars) or malignant (in the case of Nute Gunray).

If the SFSRs of Central Asia decided en masse that they were going to secede and establish a rival federation to the Soviet Union for purely political reasons, you can bet that Moscow would have had a problem with that, just as Abraham Lincoln had a problem with the Confederate States of America.

If you still find something morally dubious about the Republic's actions... well, maybe that's the point.

At first, there's just the Separatist Crisis. There is no known plan by the Separatists to attack. Padme does not know that the Separatists are going to attack. There is a militarist faction in the Senate, pushing for the creation of a formal Republic military that could be used in the event of a war with the defiant Separatists, but Padme feels that this would provoke a confrontation with them and make war inevitab

 

I simply take the phrase "Anti-slavery laws" to mean that slavery is not allowed. If you are ANTI something, that often means you are against something. So the republic is AGAINST slavery.
"The Anti-Slavery Day Act 2010 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to introduce a national day to raise awareness of the need to eradicate all forms of slavery, human trafficking and exploitation. Anti-Slavery Day is 18 October.[1]" From UK statue law database.

As you say people commit crime despite it being illegal. Does the fact that something is happening make this something legal? No. Rape happens in my contry and yet it is very much illegal.
I have not argued that slavery can not happen, my argument was how LEGAL it is.

The subject of this thread was the morality and ethics of using a clone army. The clones are living beings. Are they slaves? They are bought and sold so they are property. They do work and apparently without pay. They can not refuse to do this work nor can they quit. All of this fits the definition of slavery.

Second, about the law. The republic has laws aginst slavery. Who made those laws? Most likely the senate. So at some point, the senate felt that slavery was not an ok practice hence they made it illegal. Padme was quite aghast that slavery even existed in the galaxy. So it does not seem like a common practice and certainly not within the republic. Now making something illegal does not automatically make something disappear.
Was I arguing that? No. I was arguing that having laws aginst slavery would mean just that, that slavery is not legal within the republic. Otherwise their anti-slavery laws make little sense. So it becomes intersting that the same senate that made slavery illegal, have no problems with using an army of slaves.

Having an army is not quite like smoking dope, armies tend to be big and rather more noticeable. If say Bill Gates accuired an army of 2 million men I would imagine that someone would notice. Esp if he began to use it. A person buying an army will want to use it, either for defence or offence. Either of which would become known.

So IF a republic citizen bought a clone army and used it, someone would be aware of it and sooner or later, so would the law. Now if this person can do this without problems from the law then either the enforcers of the law are corrupt or do not view this as serious or "slave" is defined in a very narrow way.
Either alternative points to a lack of morale and ethics within the republic.
This would also include the Jedi as they are guardians of peace and JUSTICE within the republic. IF they knew that people used slave armies and yet they did not feel the need to do anything about it.

In closing, the republic has laws against slavery, this is known. The clone army would fit the definition of an army of slaves. And yet you see no evidence of it being unlawful?
The only way I can see this being the case is if the clones are deemed without basic rights and can be treated as nothing more than disposable weapons. This does not say much for the moral fibre of the republic.

Regards
Nordom

 

Its pretty clear that the lack of action in freeing slaves and the use of clone army are part of the downfall of the jedi-
The order accepts these things as it and the republic are being corrupted slowly - allowing the sith to move into postion for their power grab.

Sidious makes the jedi - starting with the use of the army - start down the path of compromise that leads to their destruction.


If they had refused and stayed on the sidelines the republic may well have fallen to the seperatists but the jedi could have possibly helped the transistion but unable to do that they fell into the sith trap and well made vulnerable to things like 66 and schisms in the order

 

I have a hard time seeing the lack of freeing slaves outside the Republic as evidence of "corruption".

It just means they don't seek to impose their will on the entire galaxy.

 

You misunderstand me, I am fully aware that this is all Palpatines plan (but perhaps not everything). Instead what I find odd is that noone questions this rather convinient army.
Like the Jedi, if they think like Qui-Gon, then the apperance of this army was not by chance but a part of some plan. And thus questions should have been asked but seemingly wasn't.

When goverments order big projects, like building a freeway or lots of housing or a new nuclear plant, there tends to be regular check ups. To see if they are on time, how the work is proceeding, if the budget is kept etc. We are talking about a big, expensive project that has been going on for almost ten years and so far the Kamino people has not heard one word from the republic. They would certainly be justified in wondering what the republic has been doing. In todays world I am not aware of any big goverment project that have worked for that long without ANY contact at all from the goverment.

The basic defenition of species is " A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." DNA similarity could also be used. Since the DNA of the clones has been altered it would mean it is different from a human. How much is not clear but if this change was big enough then the clones DNA would no longer be human. I am not saying they AREN'T human or a lesser species, but it is possible that their DNA has been altered to the point of them not longer beign human.

A general leads troops and plans strategies. This include having some kind of overall plan or tactic. The Jedi instead fought a bunch of solo fighters without plan or thought.
Both as soldiers and as generals, the Jedi failed and they paid the price for their stupidity. Dooku was the target so more than one Jedi should have been sent to deal with him. When you are outnumbered then focus your power at one point, spreading out and fighting the entire enemy army is idiotic.
So again, what makes the Jedi generals? Are there no other people with military training in the republic?

A general would not act like a gladiator nor would a "gladiator" approach work. An army is not just a collection of fighters, each one fighting for themselves. An army has to work as a unit, one part doing one thing while others do something else. A well organized and structured army can defeat a much larger, undisciplined enemy.

 

In real life, normal people within each American state elect their senators. The states are still subordinate to the federal government. The Republic clearly has a hold over each of its member worlds, passes its own laws over them, and doesn't accept secession. Palpatine can declare himself as Emperor and pass that off as a mere reorganization of the existing government, without anyone in the Senate so much as mentioning that the Empire would be conquering their totally independent systems. Because each system wasn't really independent.

It was an option, and was Padme's original position. As others have said, things changed after Obi-Wan's discoveries on Geonosis.

Secession from an unwilling supreme government and attacking that government can easily go hand-in-hand. The South fired the first shots of the American Civil War.

 

About if the republic is one nation or not. We have rulers of the individual planets.

Also in TPM several worlds are said to be controlled by the TF. How can that be if all the worlds are republic territory? The TF want Padme to sign some treaty to give them controll over Naboo. Again how can that be if Naboo is republic soil? Padme would have no legal right to sign it away and the TF would have no right to claim it.

Qui-Gon and Obi-wan are given the title of Ambassadors when sent to deal with the TF.
Why that title if Naboo and the TF are all the same nation? Ambassadors are often used when dealing with Foreign representatives. Would the US goverment sent an ambassador to talk with the mayor of New York?

Clearly there are some areas where the senate has final say and laws that all members worlds have to follow. But still I am not convinced that there is enough to say that it can be seen as just one nation and not a union of sovergin worlds.

And yet there are examples of peacefull separation so there is no law that says that this MUST lead to war.

Why would there be war? If the seps are allowed to separate in peace why would this automatically lead to war? Clearly if the seps WANT to leave but the senate refuses and the seps say "we'll leave anyway" and the senate responds "If you leave, we will kill you" that will lead to war. Padme opposes the army yes but would she be willing to let the seps leave in peace? I am not sure, it seems that she still wants to stop them from leaving but not with military force.

I am trying to understand the thinking of the senate at the start of AotC. We know that several hundered worlds want to leave but they have not yet actually done so. This for some reason causes a problem for the jedi to maintain peace. Why? If they are still negotiating and no fighting have broken out why is it harder to mantain the peace? And if they do leave in peace there would be LESS republic territory for the jedi to watch over which would things easier for them, not harder.
The senate wants to create an army to help the jedi and stop the seps from leaving.
So was the option of just letting the seps leave in peace ever considered? It does not seem so. Why? Systems can join the republic but never ever leave?

Did the senate know that the seps where controlled by the TF and others? It does not seem so. Also why would worlds unhappy with the republic be so quick to trust the TF and crew?
Much of the corruption in the senate was due to them. They have showed to have little regard for life and freedom with their conquest of Naboo. So why would they be a better alternative than the republic?

NOTE, I understand full well why these things are happening. The seps want to leave because Palpatine tells them to. The warmongers in the senate wants to create an army because Palaptine tells them to. So it all is just because Palpatine tells them to. But I am trying to understand then thinking of the characters IN the story that might

 

Kudos to Nordom again. As always, I agree with you and I wish I could present my arguments as well as you do.

It seems that there are two things being debated on this thread currently:

1) How can the Republic condone the use of the clone army, which is, let's not mince words, made up of hundreds of thousands of slaves who are forced to fight and die?
I know that some of you disagree with me here, but I feel that this is the root of one of the biggest flaws of the prequels. Who are we supposed to cheer for? A corrupt and hypocritical Republic who uses disposable slaves to fight their wars (despite their supposed anti-slavery laws), or a Seperatist group who uses an army of battle droids without putting innocent lives at stake?
At first glance, the Separatists appear to be the less morally corrupt... But wait! They're led by a dude with a red lightsaber and who uses force lightning... and the Jedi seem to have a problem with said dude, and the Jedi are the goods guys, right, so we're supposed to be on their side, right? And then in the next movie, the Seps are led by a cyborg who kills jedi and steals their weapons, and he has an evil way of speaking, so he must be evil, right? So the Seps the bad guys, right?
By the end of AOTC, it all becomes apparent that the wars are pointless anyway, as Palpatine is playing both sides. All the battle scenes on the screen make no difference, as the end result is always the same. So then, again, who do you cheer for? If the audience fails to chose a side, the movie fails.
The plot is all too ambiguous and confusing. Star Wars is supposed to be about good vs evil; innocence vs corruption. Simple.

2) Why is the notion of separation so horrible, and was a full scale war necessary?
As it was presented in the films, it appeared that the Seps wanted to carve out their own goverment within the boundaries/ confines of Republic space. Is that so horribly wrong that certain members of the Republic viewed this as just cause for a full scale war, even before coming across evidence of a Sep plot to overthrow the Republic? Morally just republics are about democracy and negotiation, not military reaction.


I wish I had the power to turn back time, and the "pull" in George Lucas' inner circle, to offer GL a few suggestions that would remove the issues with the points noted above. I would suggest the following:

The slave army of clones is used by an evil faction whose aim is to annex planetary sytems, one by one, with an ultimate goal of galactic domination. The same faction uses slave armies of conquered peoples, much in the way Attila the Hun used conquered peoples to expand his armies. The films could include scenes showing the evil faction's abuse of slaves. The Republic's army of volunteers is stretched to their limits as the cloners expand, and the dwindling number of Jedi struggle to maintain peace. There you have it; the reason for the war effort is crystal clear; and the Republic = good, the Cloners/ Slavers = evil.
At some point (maybe in the third film), Senator Palpatine, a retired general and popular war hero, betrays the Republic when it is at its weakest by organizing a military coup that places him in dictatorial power. At the end of the war, the defeated cloners/ slavers are forced to hand over their armies to the Empire (the clones are pre-programmed to follow orders, and their new orders are to obey Palpatine's military command).

I know some of you will poo-poo all over this, so let the fecal flinging begin!

 

Sorry. Tripple post...

 

Sorry. Tripple post...

 

You may be forgetting things like the Trade Federation blowing up innocent Judicials, invading Naboo, trying to assassinate Amidala...

 

That may be true. In fact, TPM shows a fairly atomised Republic.

That wasn't my point. Evidently, the leaders of the Republic by the time of AOTC have a different opinion about the nature of the Republic. Whether that opinion is justified or not is debatable.

And that's without even considering exactly what the Separatists are seceding over. From the perspective of the Republic's leaders, the Separatists could be seen as merely throwing a tantrum over politics and going to extremes.

That wasn't just a random example of a hypothetically violent separation. That was meant to be contrasted against the example of Kazakhstan and the other republics separating from Russia in 1991. The former Soviet states left the USSR in part for nationalist reasons rather than purely political reasons and they did not establish a rival federation to the USSR. In fact, they remained close to the Russian core of the former USSR. If they had done otherwise and formed an anti-Soviet federation, then the Soviet government would have seen the existence of the rival federation as a direct attack at the legitimacy of their own federation.

In Star Wars, the Separatists leave because of political disputes and establish a rival federation that would be seen as undermining the legitimacy of the Galactic Republic. That is why the Republic Loyalists do not recognise the rival federation, or even "let" the Separatists leave to establish it, as much as it's in their power to do so.

This is very different from, for example, Scotland leaving the UK.

 

You're defining "Ambassador" much more narrowly than it's actual definition:

Furthermore, TPM tells us that the Trade Federation indeed answers to the Senate:

"The Senate would revoke their trade franchise and they would be finished."

If the Republic was the EU, then the Republic would have no more ability to shut down the Trade Federation than France has to shut down Mercedes-Benz.

 

Perhaps I wasn't clear, but I was referring to the Separatist armies being mechanical (droids), as opposed to flesh and blood entities. They were not putting life forms in harms way for the war effort, whereas the Republic used hundreds of thousands of slaves for their purpose.