Saga Lucas’s vision of the Sith and galactic history over time

The Jedi were not secluded scholars. They walked around the galaxy and settled disputes and conflicts, bringing peace and justice wherever they went. People asked them for help and they helped, giving them the authority for that. As Lucas said, they were like Marshals in the Wild West. That never changed, even when the Republic came into being.

 

I like this.

Palpatine says the Sith will rule the Galaxy again, but it is never said that the Sith were unified.

You could say that the daimyo once ruled Japan, even though they did so collectively in fiefs not as an Empire.

Palpatine then goes on to say that his Empire will be the first Galactic Empire, which could imply one never existed before.

I do like the idea that the ancient Sith ruled more like the Kings of medieval Europe or Shoguns of Japan, never able to consolidate power into a smooth running bureaucratic state until Palpatine hijacked the Republic’s political and economic systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But I think it’s an open question when exactly the Jedi became more involved in the galaxy’s affairs.

The novelization for TPM, which was closely informed by Lucas’s thoughts on the subject, says this about the Jedi Order’s origins:

“Founded as a theological and philosophical study group so far back that its origins were the stuff of myth, the Jedi had only gradually become aware of the presence of the Force. Years had been spent in its study, in contemplation of its meaning, in mastery of its power. Slowly the order had evolved, abandoning its practice of and belief in a life of isolated meditation in favor of a more outward-looking commitment to social responsibility. Understanding the Force sufficiently to master its power required more than private study. It required service to the greater community and implementation of a system of laws that would guarantee equal justice for all.”​

That could certainly have happened before the Sith Order split off. But consider a couple of other statements from Lucas about the Sith:

“The Sith are the arch-enemies of the Jedi, and for a long time, they ruled the universe until the Jedi came along and got rid of them.”

“There was never a war between the Jedi and the Sith Lords. The Sith Lords were in control for a long time…. There may have been thousands or millions of them and eventually, after 100 or 150 years, they killed everyone except for two…. Then the Republic came to power and the Jedi brought peace to the galaxy by being ambassadors and troubleshooters.”
​

These quotes suggest the Jedi did not have a big presence in the galaxy until after the Sith destroyed themselves. I know Lucas’s comments on timing need not always be read as precise statements. But I think it makes sense and explains why the Jedi did not do much to help prevent the expansion of the Sith.

This also doesn’t mean they were completely isolated. Perhaps they were no longer as secluded as they were in earlier times, but they certainly did not seem to have a galactic presence until after the fall of the Sith and the rise of the Galactic Republic.

 

What I think Lucas was stressing with the Sith feudal system is that they never consolidated power under a single empire due to their greed. So each one had their own power base, their own "empire", and they all craved each others power, hence the in-fighting. Palpatine managed to do it, first and foremost, because there were no other Sith to rival with him. He was the only Sith master.

 

Well, we don't exactly know how it all went down, but considering what Lucas has established and reiterated many times, it's not like the Jedi could do something to prevent it, they have a different role. The Sith rule and conquer, while the Jedi only defend and serve. They can't act as an opposing army to the Sith because they aren't an army.

That's the thing, the Jedi never had a galactic presence to begin with. They were a rare sight, even in the Republic. Even in their prime, their numbers were small and they only go where they are needed.

 

@Alexrd

I’m curious about where the comparison to marshals in the Wild West comes from. That sounds like it’d be how Lucas imagined the Jedi before developing the prequels. And it could still work for the pre-Republic era. But I think the Jedi who served under the Republic did so in accordance with clear laws and under the direction of the Senate and the Supreme Chancellor. That’s remarkably different from them being independent knights errant, which is how some interpreted the Jedi to be in the past based on the original trilogy (namely, TotJ).

It’s true that there wouldn’t have been a Jedi army versus a Sith army, per Lucas. But I’d be surprised if Jedi Knights defending a system would just let a Sith Lord and his army conquer unchallenged. Perhaps they did challenge the Sith and died because they were outnumbered. That would mean the Sith conquest entailed significant Jedi losses. But what else would the Jedi have been doing while the galaxy suffered for so long? This is part of why it made sense to me that this might still be a time period when the Jedi were mostly removed, not “arriving” to help save the galaxy, along with the Republic, until much later.

 

I don’t have the source, but I remember that quote being from him talking about the prequel trilogy

edit: I found it apparently from this



And it is indeed from 2002

 

He said it plenty of times, during the prequels and after that:

"Vader has to do the Emperor's bidding. You will see at some point in the future that the Jedi have the same relationship to the Republic; they're like public servants, they're like marshals or policemen. They basically do what they're told to do. They're not independent agents who can do whatever they want." - George Lucas

"The Sith are people who are very self-centered and selfish. There used to be many Sith, but because they were corrupted by power and ambition, they killed each other off, so now there are only two - a master and an apprentice. Sith rely on their passion to get things done. They use their raw emotion, their hatred, their anger, their bitterness - which is the dark side of the Force. The Force is what binds the galaxy together, and it has a good side and a bad side. The Sith learned how to manipulate both sides of the Force, and then they fell into the trap of being corrupted by the dark side. The Jedi Knights are like marshals in the Wild West. It's their job to make sure everyone is protected, to bring peace. They are the enemy of the Sith, because the Sith want to dominate the galaxy, to control everything, and for a thousand years they have had a plot against the Jedi." - George Lucas

[The Jedi] are like ultimate father figures or negotiators. And and at this point in time they’re sent out to negotiate a deal. They help to put forth answers where people are in the middle of a dispute. They’re aren’t an aggressive force at all. They try to — conflict resolution, I guess, is what you might call it - intergalactic therapists." - George Lucas

"The people on [Naboo] are threatened, and there's a trade dispute, so they send these two Jedi, who are the - kind of the enforcers of the universe. The way they settle disputes is like the way the mafia settles disputes. They sort of come in and say 'You take half, you take half, it's settled, okay, now that's the end of it.'" - George Lucas

"They're designed as a kind of police force and diplomatic corps." - George Lucas

"The Jedi's basic job in the beginning, which we never get to see too much of because we start really during the war, they were like marshals in the Old West: they would go from town to town and they would help solve the problems. In a lot of cases the marshals and the judges were pretty much the same thing and they would just travel, and they would bring justice and solve problems for people. Which is kind of what Jedi are. And they are negotiators, they are not fighters. Only they are negotiators sort of like the mafia. They are compassionate negotiators with a very big laser sword, which they don't like to use, but if somebody doesn't want to solve the problem then they would solve it for them, so to speak. Which is an incentive for people to solve their problems without fighting." - George Lucas

"The idea was to establish Jedi as what they were, which is sort of peacekeepers who moved through the galaxy to settle disputes. They aren’t policemen, they aren’t soldiers; they’re mafia dons. They come in and sit down with the two different sides and say, 'Okay, now we’re going to settle this.'" - George Lucas

"They’re not like [the kind of] cops who catch murderers. They’re warrior-monks who keep peace in the universe without resorting to violence. The Trade Federation is in dispute with Naboo, so the Jedi are ambassadors who talk both sides and convince them to resolve their differences and not go to war. If they do have to use violence, they will, but they are diplomats at the highest level." - George Lucas

The Jedi, before and during the Republic, serve the people who give them jurisdiction to do so, to keep the peace and justice in the "town". They are not vigilantes. They are public servants. They don't "defend" systems, they defend people and themselves. They might even give some assistance, but they aren't a military. Even if they wanted to, they never had the numbers to be one. The Jedi are not and never were the response against any invasion force, be it one from the Sith, Mon Calamari, Naboo, Hutts, whatever. Qui-Gon warns Padmé about it in TPM. And the Council warns Palpatine of the same thing at the beginning of AOTC.

 

They’re marshals in the old west; warrior monks; a police force; a diplomatic corp; they settle arguments like the mafia(?!)

Lucas seemed to be a little here and a little over there with how he saw them.

They weren’t meant to be military leaders, and yet Leia addresses Obi-Wan as General, and Luke holds a military title in the Rebellion.

And I know if falls outside of Lucas’ content, but we have Poe tell Rey that she’s the best fighter they have.

For not belonging in a military role, they keep ending up there and the films don’t do much to convey the idea that they are doing anything wrong in holding such rank.

It’s true that there aren’t enough Jedi to fight a war. Just as there surely weren’t enough Sith to conquer the Republic militarily. Whether it be droids, Mandalorians, recruits, clones or slaves. Surely the Sith had help. And I’m sure as the Republic was falling, there were probably a bunch of non-Jedi, Republic loyalists fighting.

If the Jedi serve the Senate and the Senate as an institution is under threat of being overthrown violently, I’d find it hard to believe that the Jedi were not joining the fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

They were given military rankings because the Jedi agreed to be the very thing they were against.

MACE: "We're keepers of the peace, not soldiers."

BARRIS OFFEE: "I did it because I've come to realize what many of people in the Republic have come to realize, that the Jedi are the ones responsible for this war. That we've so lost our way that we have become villains in this conflict, that we are the ones that should be put on trial, all of us! And my attack on the Temple was an attack on what the Jedi have become. An army fighting for the dark side, fallen from the light that we once held so dear. This Republic is failing! It's only a matter of time."

As to Poe telling Rey she was a good fighter, that's different. A Jedi can fight well, but they shouldn't be leading the fight.

 

I’m not sure Barris’ statements mean much which she had clearly fallen.

And Mace’s statement isn’t really a moral judgement, just a statement of logistics. His statement immediately prior is that there aren’t enough Jedi to protect the Republic. He didn’t say the Jedi couldn’t or wouldn’t play a role in the defense of the Republic, just that they didn’t have the numbers to constitute a Republic army without assistance.

You had Padme trying to seek a diplomatic solution and was against mobilization. Then you had Mace basically saying to Palpatine, “hey, you might need to be prepared to mobilize, we don’t have the numbers to fight a war.”

Barris is really the only one I can think of that really tries to put any kind of moral analysis on the Jedi fighting, and she uses it to justify her own crimes.

How the Jedi relate to the Senate and all their legal obligations to each other isn’t something that ever gets entirely outlined. Do the Jedi have to be ordered by the Senate to get involved in a conflict?

Do all parties involved have to agree to allowing the Jedi to mediate? If not, then a “you get half, you get half, and that’s the end of it” seems tyrannical.

Can Jedi turn down Senate orders? Does the Senate even order anything or is it requests? If the Jedi serve the Republic senate and the Republic itself is threatened, can the Senate conscript the Jedi?

And then what do the roles and responsibilities of Jedi look like in a scenario in which the Senate is acting in a way that doesn’t fall in line with the Jedi moral compass? I.E. we still get arguments about whether Mace was right to try and kill Palpatine or not. Jedi aren’t supposed to kill unarmed prisoners, but the entire government that would be responsible for carrying out justice had been compromised.

I don’t think there was ever a clear moral course of action, nor clear moral answer. The Jedi have great power and a responsibility to the Republic. Had the Jedi all been conscientious objectors, would that have been right? I’m not so sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So all these comparisons seem to be more focused on describing how the Jedi operate within their role in the Republic. They don’t really clarify how the Jedi would deal with systems independently of the organized galactic government that sent them to resolve specific disputes. When the comparison to marshals was made earlier, I got the impression that this meant to describe the Jedi as independent actors who arrived at a given place pretty much by virtue of following the call of the Force or perhaps a specific request from a place in need, Republic or no Republic. But it seems that there are no clear descriptions of how the Jedi operated before the Republic, outside of the general description of their hermetic origins from the Episode I novelization.

The reason I focus on that point, the question of how Jedi operated pre-Republic, is because I do sense that it contributes to the description of how the Sith Lords came to conquer swathes of the galaxy. If there was no Republic, then is there really reason to believe the Jedi were spread across the galaxy? Or was that a time period when they would’ve been based on whatever few systems they had established as learning and meditation centers?

Because wherever the Jedi were, that’s where the Sith came from. They specifically left Jedi worlds to conquer independent systems. To me that sounds like a diaspora of sorts, a departure from a specific point, or a small number of points, to a greater space of previously unconnected systems. The Jedi then eventually followed the Sith and arrived at the galactic stage to help mitigate the pain and destruction caused by their arch-enemies. And eventually they helped however they could in contributing to the final elimination of the Sith threat and the growth of democracy in their former fiefdoms.

The alternative is that the Jedi were always spread across the galaxy, even without a central government to guide them, and the Sith emerged and began their conquest in many of the same systems the Jedi were sworn to protect. Although they are not soldiers, this does give a certain impression of the Jedi not really doing anything to directly confront the Sith during their rise to power. Wouldn’t systems already accustomed to calling on Jedi Knights reach out for their protection? It makes more sense to me that this was not the case, that the Sith conquest occurred before the Jedi became involved as protectors on a greater scope, and that this contributed to establishing that role for them on that level.

That doesn’t mean the Jedi couldn’t have had some kind of protective role on a smaller scale. But to my mind it would’ve had to occur in a different location from the systems the Sith Lords spread into. Otherwise it really does seem like the Jedi are just standing there watching the Sith do their thing right in front of them for a century or so before being spurred to take any meaningful action.

Compare this to a later arrival by the Jedi Knights into Sith space contributing to strife among the Sith Empires. If the Jedi’s later arrival was directly related to the wars that ensued, it also gives greater meaning to the idea that the Sith want revenge on the Jedi. Not because the Jedi wiped the them out, but because the Jedi’s arrival instigated the weakening of Sith power and the apocalyptic conflicts that resulted from that.

Now, I know the Sith wars were caused by the Sith Lords’ own greed and failure to co-exist, and their revenge against the Jedi is primarily misplaced blame for this failure as well as a continuation of their resentment for being originally dismissed by the Jedi for following the dark side. But I do get the sense that it is specifically tied to the rise of the Republic and the loss of their power as well.

 

Lucas seems pretty consistent in how he saw them. They are warrior monks who serve as a diplomatic force. Their role in the galaxy is the equivalent of marshals in the Wild West. And they settle disputes like mafia dons, with a firm hand by exercising their authority. Pretty straightforward.

Because the Jedi were drafted into the Republic army and held military ranks. It's an historical fact, Kenobi was a Republic general. That doesn't mean the role of the Jedi is meant to be military leaders. The Republic did that out of desperation.

And Luke holds a rank while he's working for and helping the Rebellion in a military capacity, not as a Jedi. By the time he gets his mission to find and continue his training under Yoda, he leaves that behind.

It's not about being for or against, it's about not being their job. That's why the Republic had to get an army anyway, because the Jedi can't act as an army. They weren't designed to be one. They did end up helping lead the army out of duty because the Republic was in a crisis, not because it's appropriate for them.

 

But it was also true. Yoda even confirms it.

EZRA: "Master Yoda, you're powerful. You must know a way to destroy Vader and his Inquisitors."

YODA: "Padawan, thousands of Jedi once there were. Then came war. In our arrogance, join the conflict swiftly we did. Fear, anger, hate. Consumed by the dark side the Jedi were."

EZRA: "Was it wrong for the Jedi to fight? Is it wrong for me to protect my friends?"

YODA: "Wrong? A long time, fought I did. Consumed by fear I was... though see it I did not."

EZRA: "You were afraid?"

YODA: "Yes, afraid. Surprised are you? A challenge lifelong it is, not to bend fear into anger."

I didn't say that the Jedi couldn’t get involved. I said that they shouldn't be leading an army into battle, but instead fight along side them. They became soldiers which was never in their mandate. There were tasks for the Jedi, but they were primarily there to be diplomats. Lucas even said they weren't soldiers. Alexrd even posted the quote from him.

Yes. The Senate as a whole or the Chancellor alone can dispatch them. Often upon request by the disputing parties.

Usually by the time the Jedi get involved, there's one step from war. If neither side can reach an amicable solution, more forceful measures were required. Even aggressive negotiations.

If the request or orders conflict with the laws and/or the Jed Code. The Jedi went to Geonosis to rescue Obi-Wan. Using the Clone Army, they had hoped to stop the conflict from spreading. But instead, it became the very thing that rallied more systems to the Separatist cause, since it made the Republic and the Jedi into the aggressors.

What you have is what we see. Palpatine blurred the lines to such a degree, that it helped push the Force out of balance and gave people reason to side with Palpatine's reformation initiative.

 

[mention]darth-sinister [/mention]

George had described Star Wars as a modern myth and that a myth is used to show a society’s beliefs, values, etc.

And in particular, the cautionary tale about how a democracy becomes a dictatorship is a big part of the prequels.

Characters can say what they did was wrong. But nobody really shows what would have been right. Or how to apply those lessons to society.

At no point in watching the movies did I ever feel like Yoda was giving into fear or the Dark Side, ever. When Yoda drew his lightsaber against Dooku, it was met with cheers by the audience. There’s no sense of wrongdoing, fear, hate, or anxiety as there was with Luke in ROTJ.

Every time Yoda fought, he was always portrayed like the confident hero. As when he casually takes out the Imperial guards and trades wit with Palpatine.

George and Dave then go back and layer this idea that Yoda was giving into fear and that fighting was wrong.

So the message I see is one of anti-war. Yet Mace is advocating for war preparation, it’s just the Jedi shouldn’t be the backbone of the army.

The Jedi are however the heroes of the myth. They represent, ultimately through Luke, the ideal to strive for. To not rush quickly to violence, to have compassion, and that love and friendship can win the day over evil.

In the prequels though, we only ever see them as being outplayed by Palpatine, so thoroughly that I have a hard time seeing any opportunity to stop him, except for had Anakin sided with Mace.

George can insist that the Jedi were not soldiers, or that they gave into the Dark Side, but he doesn’t show how a different course of action could have saved the day.

Right from the beginning of TPM, he shows the Jedi as confident that the Sith are dead. He shows Yoda and Mace as not wanting Anakin out of fear. And yet later Obi-Wan regrets that in his arrogance he thought he could train Anakin as well as Yoda.

When AOTC rolls around, we glossed over 99% of Anakin’s training and go from a sweet kid to a hot headed, angry teenager who is already spending too much time around Palpatine. Padme is against the creation of an army, and she basically gets sent away without any say in the matter.

An army was already created off screen in the interim between films, and Dooku has already built up the CIS and is himself building an army.

Really it just seems like all the mistakes are made off camera.

Yoda could have dug his heels in and refused press the issue about training Anakin, yet it’s not made clear in the film whether that’s good or not. The viewer already knows what Anakin’s future is and sees an opportunity to stop it, but Yoda gives up. But then you could say that Yoda was giving into fear by refusing training, so allowing it might be the right thing to do. And yet, the Council seemed fairly united against the idea of training him recognizing the danger of it, until Maul was identified as a Sith. So maybe it’s actually that the Council changed their minds out of fear?

The Jedi could have refused to get involved in the war. Had Jar Jar actually represented Padme accurately, perhaps the Clone Army would have been rejected, and Anakin, Obi-Wan and Padme would have been killed, but their sacrifice might have doomed Palpatine’s plan. But is that right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You're correct, but George never did such a thing. He does defend Yoda's course of action throughout the movies, because it's defensive in nature. Yoda is doing the right thing by fighting Dooku and trying to stop him. He's not giving into the dark side. He's doing his duty as a Jedi.

You're right again.

There was no other course of action. George never said that they gave into the dark side. He insists that they aren't soldiers in the sense that it's not their actual purpose and true role. Not that the Jedi can't be involved and help fight in a war in a situation of crisis or by being forced into it, which is what did happen. They aren't wrong for fighting in defense of the Republic, to protect it. They were simply deceived and betrayed by the bad guy.

George is simply playing on the classic conundrum of the peacekeeper being forced to partake in a conflict. But it's not a criticism on the peacekeeper. It's a commentary that there are times when you are forced to get your hands dirty. How you fight it's what separates the hero from the villain, the honorable from the dishonorable, the selfless from the selfish.

"There’s a conundrum ultimately. It’s been there forever. Which is, are you just going to sit there and let them kill you? Or your loved ones? Or destroy the world that you know? Or are you going to try to fix it? At some point, you do have to stand up for what you believe in. (...) If a cobra’s going to strike you, I think you have every right to put a stick up there and hit him over the head. Because it’s either him or you. Of course, this is the mythology of the cowboy. They always put him in these crises where you have to choose between your own personal values and the practicality of what you need to do. You’ve got to pick up the sheriff’s badge even though you had all these problems in the past. You’re going to have to go out and kill people again. Even though you said you’d never do it." - George Lucas

"It’s a tough call. It’s one of the conundrums of which there’s a bunch of in my movies. You have to think it through. Are they going to stick with their moral rules and all be killed, which makes it irrelevant, or do they help save the Republic? They have good intentions, but they have been manipulated which was their downfall." - George Lucas

And Lucas didn't do it just with the Jedi. In TPM, Amidala is facing the same conundrum. Like the Jedi, she hates war, she doesn't want to go to war, that's the last thing she wants to happen. But in the end she's forced to go to war. And she's not wrong for doing so.

It's very in vogue nowadays for people (fans and creatives) to blame and criticize the Jedi and their decisions, but George never did that. He actually stands behind their decisions. It's like when people try to blame the Jedi for what happened to Anakin. George never did such a thing either. The Jedi are not and never were responsible for that. Anakin is to blame for going against everything the Jedi taught him. For choosing to feed and give into his fear and greed.

 

Ironic, that's how Russia justifies itself these days.

Ultimately, you either start a war or you don't. The Jedi and the Republic did. They were the ones who attacked Geonosis, preemptively. The Trade Federation had already attacked Naboo, and Padme was acting in self-defense after trying to reason in the Senate. Okay, you could justify her in a way, sure. But the Jedi took the clones without a second thought, and attacked Geonosis. That paints them in a certain light. If the Separatists had actually attacked the Republic first, and the Jedi were forced to defend the Republic and take the clone army due to the actual Separatist attacks on their planets, then it would have been valid. But as we have it, they just attacked a sovereign planetary system, because of Obi-Wan's hearsay. Saying the Jedi's actions were justified is like justifying Russia, or justifying the US nuking China, because they are a threat to their national security, and they have a huge army. But no one does that in real life. If everyone were to act like the Jedi in Attack of the Clones, the Earth would have been long dead. Could the Jedi and the Republic do more to reason with the Separatists? They could. They could at least try. But they never did. We were never shown that. The Separatists are actually real people that have real problems with the Republic, that is a corrupt state in decline. But they never acknowledged the people behind the Separatists, they only acknowledged Dooku as an enemy. We are told that more and more systems are leaving the Republic, we are told that tens of thousands of systems are willingly ready to join Dooku's cause. Are they all evil? If the Jedi wanted to fix things, they would talk, not battle people into submission acting as the state enforcers. How does it make them right? Sure, we as the audience know that Palpatine is behind it all and that Dooku is his lackey, and it was all a ploy by them to destroy the Jedi Order and subvert the Republic. But people in-universe don't know that. The Jedi did not know that. They were just "restoring order" for Palpatine, beating everyone who opposed the Republic and wanted to leave it, because, apparently, the Republic cannot be corrupt and wrong a priori, and the Jedi will serve it and do its bidding without recognizing how wrong it is, either due to their own stupidity or arrogance or fear of losing their power within the system, pick whichever you like.

 

What the...?! I don't know where that even comes from.

Ultimately, the Republic (not the Jedi) chose to create an army and use it to face the droid armies that were specifically created to attack a supposedly unprotected Republic. They weren't acting on a vacuum. The Jedi didn't start a war, but tried to prevent it. Unfortunately they weren't successful and Dooku escaped.

But it wasn't hearsay. And the action the Republic chose to take was preventive. It was to prevent a war from happening, to stop them before they were ready. Of course, unbeknownst to everyone but the Sith lords who orchestrated the whole thing, they were ready and did result in the start of the war.

You have a very limited knowledge of history if you think secret intel and preventive military actions never happened nor prevented wars and other atrocities from happening or escalating. And the issue wasn't simply having armies. The issue was exactly what Obi-Wan learned from that secret meeting on Geonosis. And that's not comparable to your example.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there isn't even absence of evidence, since it's established throughout AOTC that there were negotiation attempts. And you're missing the larger point that the characters don't have access to: both the separatists and the Republic were used by the Sith lords for their own goals. It doesn't matter how close many peace attempts there were, the Sith were secretly fostering war on both sides, and they would continue to do so no matter what everyone did. Because on both sides there are people interested in war too. It's not the Jedi, or the good senators, or the people.

Yes, the Separatists are real people. That's established in the movie. And Dooku is an enemy considering what he was doing on Geonosis, not because he was convicing people to leave the Republic. And it's the friction in each planet on wether to stay or leave that created unrest and left the Jedi with their hands full and unable to keep the peace.

Who said they are evil? That's a non sequitur.

Who said the Jedi didn't want to fix things? Who said they didn't try? Who said they didn't talk? You're oversimplifying the issue. And "battle people into submission"?! Where does that even come from?

Pay attention to what's established and stated in the movie. Everything is explained there. Starting in the opening crawl.

 

That comes from real life, from the fact that it is the exact same justification they use, and it doesn't hold an ounce of scrutiny.

No, ultimately, what we see on screen in Attack of the Clones, is that Yoda goes to inspect the army for himself, and then Yoda is the one who attacks Geonosis with all its might, leading the clones and giving orders. That is what we were shown in the movie. They did start a war by invading a sovereign planetary system of Geonosis. They had no right to be there. The wars are not prevented by starting them, they are prevented through negotiations. The Jedi did not do that. Dooku escaped after they had invaded Geonosis. And even if Dooku had been captured, nothing would have changed. It is foolish to assume that someone else would not have taken his place. You still have tens of thousands of systems with grievances against the Republic, and they have an army to back up those grievances, to be listened to.

And preemptive strikes don't make them right. They committed an act of aggression. It makes them wrong. The Separatists hadn't attacked the Republic yet, and they were not justified in any way to attack Geonosis. Dooku can say all he wants, and it is reasonable to assume the Separatists need an army to have the strength to defend themselves and have weight to their words. That's what Dooku said: "The Republic will agree to any demands we make." The Separatists want to leave the Republic. Tens of thousands of systems willingly joined Dooku. Real people. No one had listened to them, which is why they left, and the Jedi did not do anything about it - we were not shown them taking any action towards peace, only leading an army.
Like Padme said: "What this war represents is a failure to listen."

Again, the Separatists had not attacked the Republic yet. The Jedi and the Republic attacked them. That makes all of it void and null. They are de facto the aggressors. You operate in the realm of possibilities, whereas I operate in the realm of what has actually happened.

And you are missing that the characters are not omniscient. By actually showing us that the Jedi tried to talk, tried to reach the government of the Separatists and their representatives, by showing us that they tried to understand and hear them, by showing us that they understood the problems within the Republic, it would have painted them in a drastically different light. You could actually show the negotiations being foiled, and the Jedi being forced into doing things they don't like. But we are never shown that. Thus, I am operating from what is in the actual movie. The Jedi never acknowledged the interests of the people on the other side; the Jedi never questioned the corruption of the Republic, which had become corrupt long before Palpatine came to power; the movie never showed us the Jedi being forced, what we were shown is Yoda willingly going on his own to inspect the clone army, then taking it and attacking Geonosis. That is what happened in the movie.

Because that was never shown in the movies. That's why I am saying this. And the characters never admitted to have tried it. The characters only showed interest in fighting and protecting a decaying, sick, corrupt state. And "battle people into submission" means exactly what it means - the Republic, led by the Jedi, attacking Separatist worlds, forcing them to go back into the Republic.

I do. I actually watch the movie and state what was shown in the movie. I don't resort to the word of God, or do mental back-flips to justify the Jedi being impeccable and right about everything.

Lucas also copped out on making the droids a primary fighting force, instead of the real people from the planets that wanted to secede, thus freeing the Jedi from the moral responsibility of killing them. But nevertheless, the droids and Dooku represent the choice of the people, who don't want to be in the Republic, so the argument still stands. People don't care if he is a Sith Lord, no one even knows that. The Jedi themselves did not know that until much later. The Jedi are shown as enforcers of Palpatine - a leader of the corrupt, decaying state, that is quickly becoming a dictatorship - putting people who don't want to be a part of that state into submission.
Padme actually realized that in Revenge of the Sith: "Have you ever considered that we may be on the wrong side? What if the democracy we thought we were serving no longer exists, and the Republic has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy?" We were never shown the Jedi even questioning that for a second, they were blindly serving and doing whatever bidding they were told to.
You can backflip all you want, but that is the reality of the situation if you think about it for more than a second.

And please, don't try to lecture me on history and justifying preemptive strikes. I will never justify war in any way. Because it cannot be justified. If you go to war, then you had failed at your job as peacekeepers, by definition. I suggest you to read "Bethink Yourselves!" by Leo Tolstoy. War is not justifiable.

 

Would have, could have, should have. Again, people failed long before Hitler by allowing Hitler to happen. We can go back in history as far back as you want. But then again, fighting in self-defense, if you had already been attacked and your rights are being violated, okay, you can be justified (or not, depending on where you stand philosophically and religiously). But then again, Hitler's goal was superiority of Germany and eradication of what he considered "lesser" races. That is not really comparable to the topic at hand, particularly of people in Star Wars wanting to leave the corrupt state of Galactic Republic. But I stand by the notion that letting the fight happen in the first place means that someone somewhere had failed at their job.

 

It's a different situation altogether and not really relevant to the argument.

No, what we see is that the Republic aproves the creation of an army to counter the Separatist threat, a threat which is secretly being amassed on Geonosis. Yoda then goes to Kamino to inspect the troops and goes to Geonosis to rescue the Jedi and with the army to do what it was meant to do.

You're arguing as if negotiations are always possible, successful and that there were none. That's not true. As Obi-Wan saw, Dooku was going to attack the Republic with the help of the private armies of the corporations, he's not interested in negotiations. He's interested in war, and so are many other people.

Everything would have changed had Dooku been captured. He wouldn't be able to keep the promises he made to the corporations and the entire thing would have crumbled. It doesn't do away with the Sith, and Palpatine would have to try something else. In any case, there was that purpose to it.

And again, the fact that there are systems who have left and want to leave the Republic is not an issue in and on itself. It's the repercussions to that that are causing issues.

No, an act of aggression isn't necessarily wrong.

They were completely justified in attacking the armies that were being amassed on Geonosis for the sole purpose of attacking the Republic.

And you're missing the whole point of it all. The corporations and their private armies are not the Separatists. Dooku is the only Separatist on Geonosis. And no Separatist system is being threatened or blackmailed for leaving the Republic. It's the fact that systems are presented with the choice to leave the Republic that's causing turmoil within them and the Jedi are unable to keep the peace because of that. In the meantime, fear is taking over both sides, and they both fear an attack from each other. The Separatist fear the Republic and the Republic fears the Separatists. Hence the debate around the creation of an army, because the Republic is defenseless if the Separatists decide to wage war. And as Padmé points out, if the Republic decides to create an army (to protect itself), the Separatists will see that as an intention to go to war and will rush to the corporations for their armies to fight the Republic. So either way, war was going to happen, sooner or later, no matter who strikes first. That's the crisis the Sith created. What happened on Geonosis was an attempt to end the war before it started by shutting down the armies that were being built with the sole purpose of attacking the Republic. Nobody went to Geonosis to invade or conquer. The Republic left the system alone after the battle.

You're the one who's judging them as if they were. I know very well that they aren't. Hence why their actions are justifiable, and not wrong.

We don't need to see any of that, you're jumping to false conclusions that the movies don't corroborate. The Jedi are well aware of the corruption in the Republic. They are not clueless to why systems are leaving it. That isn't and never was the issue. It's all in the movie.

No, it isn't. Those are all assumptions you're making. And you continue to pretend that the issue is the intention of leaving the Republic when it's not.

Something not being shown doesn't mean it didn't happen. A lot of things are not shown. And like I said before, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there isn't even absence of evidence, because the opening crawl alone (not to mention everything else in the movie) establishes quite a lot in that regard.

What Lucas says is what the movie already shows. You're the one doing backflips with your premises, and apparently have a problem with Lucas statements on why the Jedi were right to act.

No, it doesn't because the entire premise of your argument is false. They aren't fighting for the ability to leave the Republic. They already left it. Leaving the Republic, in and on itself, is not the issue.

You were the one that was ignoring history.

And you're free to never justify it. I guess if it were up to you, Naboo would be under the control of the Trade Federation, the Separatist Alliance would be free to take over and blackmail the Republic, and the Empire could go on forever pointing its Death Star laser to every planet that shows any hint of dissent.

I won't point any real world examples since the fictional ones should illustrate the point well enough.

 

So what would all this mean for the role of the Jedi during the reign of the Sith?

There was no Republic that they were sworn to serve and protect. There was no Senate or Supreme Chancellor to direct them to systems that needed their support. Did individual systems appeal to the Jedi for help with specific problems, the way Alderaan asked Obi-Wan for help in Episode IV?

And what would that help look like? The Sith Lords did not engage in diplomacy, they simply conquered. It was a full-scale war, so if the Jedi weren’t part of any of the armies in combat, and if there was no diplomacy to speak of, then how were they helping the people who went to them for support?

I know this is not something Lucas has explored. But I’m wondering if something can be reconstructed from what we have been shown or told.

 

In the current new cannon we’ve seen a fair few ancient Jedi sites that are in secluded locations, (Ach-to, Jedha, Tython). This is a stark contrast to the PT, when the Order is headquartered on Coruscant, a bustling metropolis. So there could be something to the idea that the Jedi started out as hermits.

As for what role the Jedi played before the formation of the Republic, Lucas has described them as ‘intergalactic therapists’, warrior monks, ‘Marshall’s in the old west’, and slightly alarmingly ‘mafia bosses’. Now make those puzzle pieces fit together.
I do think that the Jedi must have spent a significant portion of their history as a martial force though, given that they all own fancy swords.

 

When I said in a previous post that the Jedi aren't secluded, I meant that in the sense that they didn't exclude themselves from the world. The Jedi are (warrior) monks, they do live a monastic and spiritual life, but they aren't cloistered.