The Case for the Empire 752
fReNeTiK writes "In this amusingly controversial article over at the weekly standard's web site, we get to hear an opinion not often heard among the hordes of Star Wars fanatics out there: The rebel alliance are actually "... an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back." An entertaining read which will surely spark flame wars of epic proportions." Reader kaypro submits an MSNBC story examining the
science of Star Wars. And
Ant notes that the
Clones DVD will be out earlier than expected.
Pinochet...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, calling Pinochet "relatively benign" is about the biggest stretch I've ever heard of. Sure, beningn to the US and its economic interests, but I think any Chileans in the room will disagree.
Satire? (Score:4, Insightful)
So, one must look at this situation differently. I really don't think the writer meant to side with the Empire 100%, mainly because that justifies Nazi-esque policies. And if he did, well I hope he has a good time refuting all the
Meanwhile, back in the real world.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pinochet [remember-chile.org.uk] was a benign dictator? This man tortured and killed thousands of people. I'd hardly call that benign..
Re:Satire? (Score:2, Insightful)
If nothing else, he makes an interesting point that the Old Republic is, at best, the lesser of two evils.
I hope he's kidding, but just in case.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm hoping that this article was written in jest, but in case it isn't, it needs to be addressed. The whole thing is asinine, but here are the most offensive errors.
The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but has little real power.
The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states.
Episode I makes it clear that it's Palpatine who is behind the bureaucratic mess that plagues the Senate. He's trying to discredit Chancellor Velorum so that he can become Chancellor. Palpatine (as Darth Sidious) admits to this.
"The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."
But it's obvious to everyone in the audience that Palpatine's concern is an act to gain the trust of Amidala. This is just a no-brainer.
What's more, it's not clear that they [the Jedi] should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes..., but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble.
I don't understand the problem with this. Qui-Gon explains that they have a screening program that presumably recruits kids from no specific background to become Jedi. So membership in the Jedi order isn't hereditary at all. That one must possess special qualities to be a jedi isn't a problem either. You can't program computers if you aren't good at technical stuff, but that doesn't make us a Royal Swiss Guard.
As for the Jedi being blinded with arrogance, yeah I guess that's true. But if they hadn't fucked up somehow, you wouldn't have had Vader, or the Emporer, and Episodes IV-VI would just be about the Jedi council sitting around picking their noses.
If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.
Assuming that this is true, and Alderaan is armed to the teeth and crawling with terrorists, the indiscriminate slaughter of every man, woman, and child on an entire planet would be an act of evil greater than anything we've ever seen. Much worse than Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Stalin combined. Of course, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that his claims about Alderaan are true.
Oh yeah, and that remark about Pinochet being a benign dictator. Saying that Pinochet's rule in Chile was acceptable is like saying that a little bit of murder is OK, just not too much. How many innocent people is it OK to murder? 100? 1000? 10,000?
I'm sorry for ranting about something that isn't even a big deal, but this article is so badly written that it's offensive. This conservative fuckhead should go back to the trailer park where he belongs.
Steve
Re:Pinochet? (Score:5, Insightful)
So your argument goes like this,
Pinocchet was a monster. He terrorized the people he was asked to protect. He had no respect for their fundamental rights. You are correct that his crimes did not match those of Stalin, Hitler, or Vlad the Impaler for that matter. Last time I heard, you don't have to commit genocide to be considered a criminal.Finally, the ends do not justify the means.
Re:Pinochet...? (Score:2, Insightful)
I am no fan of Pinochet, but when you consider there were massive demonstrations in favour of him, and against his trial in Europe, and a hero's welcome when he was returned, it becomes plausible some Chileans actually like him. Granted, it is possible these were all staged, and people were paid to celebrate in what we believe to be a relatively poor and unfree country, but this was believed to be the case in Nazi Germany, and was proven wrong. There actually were ordinary citizens in direct favour of the oppressive dictatorship.
In freer and ostensibly democratic societies this seems unconcionable to the average person, but it appears to be the case in such places.
Die, Ugly Ones! Die! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Points (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, the empire is evil. Sound familiar? Striking out against the great evil that has enveloped the galaxy in its wicked grasp, this small band of freedom fighters struggles against the overwhelming might of an unjust and corrupt empire.
But, from the other side of the "war on terror":
"Our top story tonight, imperial security sources tell us that a radical terrorist group, calling themselves "the alliance", has struck once again at key imperial military and economic interests in the outer rim of the galaxy."
"Our source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that terrorists, using small, lightly armed attack fighters, carried out a cowardly surprise attack against a major imperial space station. The source reports that the terrorists were beaten back and that the space station sustained only minor damage."
"However, we at ENN have received unconfirmed reports that the space station was, in fact, destroyed by the terrorist attack. Only one imperial commander reportedly managed to escape from the space station, and is now leading a manhunt to track down and destroy the terrorists responsible for this attack."
No, I'm not equating the star wars empire to any particular country on earth, just making the observation that what differentiates a rebel hero from a terrorist is your perspective.
Re:Questions (Score:1, Insightful)
Carpet-bombing-Afghanistan parallels anyone?
And anyway, the rebels wipe out Endor by exploding a large metallic 'moon' in a low orbit. Thats gotta hurt! Red hot metal fragments and unexploded armoments raining down on the planet for a while.
Those Ewoks are toast.
It's all Greek to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Athenian, specifically. That city state had direct democracy (restricted by gender and status, as the US system was originally) rather than representative democracy. Every free adult man could and should (and were sometimes coerced to) take part in city assemblies, on an equal basis. Anyone could speak, everyone could vote.
The results of this great experiment? Well, tyranny, for one. They regularly executed "traitors" (e.g. anyone who spoke against the democracy like Socrates), or in fact anyone that annoyed a sufficient number of people. They engaged in wars of aggression. They demanded tribute with menaces. They justifed all of this by saying that they must be right simply because they were a democracy.
In the end, the system turned into the Senate scene from Menace. It became too big and too unweildy. Votes were bought, issues were decided on a whim or a clever turn of phrase, and eventually a majority of them decided that they'd be much better of as a dictatorship.
No, dictatorships never last, but then neither do democracies in the true sense. A ruling overclass always emerges, and eventually becomes heriditary. We reelect 90% of incumbent candidates, draw our political candidates from privileged political dynasties, and our monarch - sorry, President - is the son and heir of a previous mo^H^H President, groomed from birth for the role, and appointed (ultimately) by a council of political appointees (all very reminiscent of the Anglo Saxon witan system). And yet we still applaud ourselves for living in a democracy because it must - must!- be better than any possible alternative.
I'm in agreement with the article. The Empire appears to be a lot better for the average Galactic Citizen than the Republic, and the only rational result of the actions of Episode VI are destructive anarchy, the rise of many mini-emperors, and death on a scale to make the destruction of Alderaan look like "regrettable collateral damage" (sound familiar?)
The first duty of any government is to maintain control, both of its position and of the most unruly of its subjects. The Empire of Star Wars does it with strength and shiny boots. Our government does it with stealth and lies (aka PR). But they both do it very well (90% incumbents, remember?), and - by and large - we're better off for it. For a New Order to rise from the ashes of the old, you have to burn down a lot of moisture farms.
Re:Pinochet? (Score:2, Insightful)
Following that logic YOU must think that Stalin is a even better dictator than Picochet. He did afterall turn his country into an modern industrial superpower.
Face it!!! your logic is both cynical and flawed.
Re:I hope he's kidding, but just in case.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It was heretofore difficult for me to contemplate someone being so pathetic that they took real offense at someone mischaracterizing the actions of fictional persons.
Re:Pinochet...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Please, laugh, the piece is satire. Only a few lines later:
Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."
Piett's predecessor was Kendal, whom Vader killed by crushing his throat so that he did indeed "fall down on the job"
Not to mention that as a dictator Pinochet was relatively benign.
Re:Pinochet...? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no, no. Pinochet wasn't a relatively benign anything. Thousands killed, tens of thousands tortured. Pinochet was one of the really top-level international criminals of the last century, not perhaps in the same bracket as Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot, but certainly at the top of the second rank.
Re:I hope he's kidding, but just in case.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The examples you gave are more individualistic removal of enemies from within an area already under control of the perpetrator. The attack in Alderaan was a military attack using a 'weapon on mass destruction' on an enemy civilian target. Maybe a better comparison would be Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden.
Re:Pinochet...? (Score:3, Insightful)
What this article neglects to mention is that rule by sheer terror inherently breeds rebellion. When fear, not loyalty, is the only reason for obedience, sooner or later people *will* rebel. In the face of rebellion the ruling power depends on its own strength of arms and the loyalty of its supporters. The final battle in Episode VI proved that it had neither -- the Death Star was defeated and Vader betrayed his ruler.
Re:Pinochet...? (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting trend here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Historically, representative governments have fared exceptionally poorly: Athens was simply a pretty cool city until it *established an empire* by forcing other city-states to pay tribute and fight its wars. The Roman Senate was ruled by a powerful group of aristocrats who could not deal with the social and economic realities of anything larger than a city. And even they were well on their way to regional control by the time good old Julius stepped in to fix the mess - and they killed him for it. The only historical representative government that has had any measure of success has been Britain, and the only people who could vote were wealthy landholders, and then only to create an advisory body to the hereditary king. Our own system sure as hell doesn't work. Sure, every once in a while we get to participate in the purely symbolic act of voting, but hey: do you want the puppet on the Left or the puppet on the Right? Democracy ain't all it's cracked up to be, people. When reading Mr. Last's article again, try to remember that.
Re:It's all Greek to me (Score:3, Insightful)
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams
Re:Questions (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really want a good parallel, look at Rome. Starting with the reign of the Etruscan kings, Rome grew to a moderately-sized city state. Rebelling against the foreign authority of the kings, Rome installed a republic, founded on the premise that no single person (no king) could wield unlimited authority over the population. Remember, even Rome's executive was dividing between TWO consuls, compared to our single president. Again, Rome grew. However, Rome's growth served to illustrate the problems inherent in large representative republics: elections begat corruption. To quote Juvenal:
"The people who once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else, now concerns itself no more, and longs eagerly for just two things - bread and circuses."
Of course, corrupt elections yield corrupt politicians. The more bread and circuses a potential politician could provide, the more likely his election. Corrupt politicians move slowly, each following his own personal interests to the exclusion of the interests of the state. Add to this the communication problems inherent in an steadily-growing sphere of influence. It's surprising that anything was accomplished at all, and eventually, nothing was. Petty squabbling and orgiastic spending replaced government.
Rome was too large and too decentralized to handle the corruption in the system. Decision making was all but stopped, and the government was an ineffectual burden on the growth and power of the state. Enter Julius Caesar. Though he was killed before the empire was realized, the events Julius Caesar put into motion took Rome out of its decline by introducing a government that reduced the effect political squabbles exerted over the state.
A single-person state cut straight through the bottleneck of the republic. Decisions, though sometimes harsh, were made. As a single executive, Caesar was the ultimate "the buck stops here." Functioning as a central decision maker, the Caesar was involved only in decisions he HAD to make, leaving the rest to appointed authority. (When later emperors deviated from this, trouble started.) Rome under this strong but benevolent guidance grew larger than any empire before it, and became firmly rooted in our own world by its grandeur.
Parallels with the Star Wars story are obvious. Large, corrupt republic replaced by an emperor with impeccably good timing. While the effect of a bad emperor can be devastating, good emperors (meaning: those who resist micromanagement) can be wonderful. The Weekly Standard author is attempting to point this out: good emperors are the ultimate laissez-faire economists. Rome was big by human standards, but a galactic civilization - spanning god-knows how many cultures and people with a HUGE communication lag - would almost require an emperor to even move. Most likely, an emperor would be required long before such a political state could exist.
Contrary to the prior poster, no government is totally "good" nor totally "evil." Strength and power may often be confused with evil, but the evil lies only in its application for a negative effect on the state and the populous as a whole, at least by the standards the author is using. By these standards, the Empire is quite good.
Personally, I'd rather be in anarchy, but the Weekly Standard is a rather right-wing, law-and-order sort of rag. (My conservative, Southern Baptist father subscribes and bought ME a subscription...ick.) Not something that most rather-libertarian (I'm a capital-L Libertarian, myself.) would read nor agree with wholeheartedly.
Hmmm, interesting... (Score:1, Insightful)
That guy has some good points, actually he has.
By the way, did you ever realize that Saddam Hussein's regime had managed to use the resources and the profits of oil trade for the benefit of the population, until the early nineties ? Iraq had one of the best education and health systems in the Middle-East till 1991, and a strongly established middle-class, with much less poverty in his country than in the surrounding regions.
Saddam was just plain *right* to invade Kuwait in order to share the benefits of oil resource among the citizens (by giving decent wages for workers, for instance) and kick the selfish royals (or Emirs, whatever you call them) out of the place. For indeed, if the GNP per head in Kuwait is higher than everywhere else in the world, there are actually 60% of the population living with less than one dollar a day. Saddam might have brought more justice and social welfare to that country if some GI-knights had not stopped him right on his way, killing 300 000 civilians in the process (and more now due to the embargo).
Oh, forget about the few thousand Kurds that were killed by Saddam during his reign, they're all evil terrorists anyway, order has to be maintained, yadda yadda...
</Tongue In Cheek>
Er, what was it on that other thread about moral relativism ? Must have missed that one...
Re:Points (Score:5, Insightful)
Horseshit.
Terrorists attack civilian populations for the PRIME reason of sowing (duh) terror. This is why George Washington wasn't a terrorist, but he was a freedom fighter. I'm not aware of any mass executions of British loyalists during the Revolutionary War (yes, many were driven out of their homes and into Canada. But that's what happens when you support the losing side in ANY war.)
Since the rebels attacked a MILITARY base (the Death Star), it wouldn't have been an act of terrorism. If they had killed Grand Moff Tarkin's Momma, that would have been terror.
Moral relativism is the sign of a lazy, spoiled mind.
-jon
Interesting characterizations (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, if Darth Vader and the Emperor really wanted order, then they would not summarily execute millions of people. All governments that are worthy of the name provide their constituents with something called due process. Now, due process is not always as rigorous as it is in the United States. But in any fair government, there is always a set of rules that govern how the authorities can proceed to the decision to incarcerate or execute. Again, there was no process given to the denizens of Alderaan. Those people were executed as traitors for a crime they either did not commit or were not proven to have committed. That is something, but it is not order. Wearing the veil of government does not automatically make the Emperor's actions legal. For example, Hitler lawfully took power in Germany. In everything he did, he made sure that there was legislation, the imprimatur of legality, to support the action. However, his government lacked legitimacy. Nothing that the Nazis did should have been considered binding legal authority, because the Nazis did not have a legitimate claim to govern. Legitimacy comes from support of the governed (by, for, and of the people, remember?), not from standing up and declaring one's self emperor and thus the sole source of all legal authority. Legitimacy also comes from a certain moral authority. A government that executes its citizens like playthings, in a back room judgment about the greater good, lacks the moral authority to govern.
Third, the author characterizes Piett's promotion as a laudable example of merit rising into its own right. But we can assume then that his superior, Admiral Ozzel I think, did not rise to his lofty position through incompetence. No, Darth Vader executed Ozzel, because Vader had, to put it lightly, an anger management problem. If you ask any soldier worth his salt whether he would want to rise in rank based on his own merit, that soldier would enthusiastically say yes. But if you ask that soldier if he would like to serve in a force where field promotions were conducted by the commander-in-chief after he executed a top-rank officer for a minor mistake, that same soldier would give a resounding no. Meritocracy does not mean rewarding incompetence with execution. Nor does meritocracy mean that the rewards of life are available on the whim of one's superiors. Darth Vader's system of promotion is about as far from meritocracy as one can go.
Fourth, the author characterizes the Republic as eager to quash the separatists. Actually, the senators that we have come to associate with peace and justice (Amidala and Organa) are the main opponents of forming an army to counter the separatists. The only members of the Republic that are eager to quash the separatists are the ones under the direct influence of the guy that is funding both the separatists and the clone army in a brazen attempt (at least to the audience) to engineer a crisis that will allow him to seize total power. It's the burning of the Reichstag. First, Darth Sidious engineers the separation movement. Then, he secretly orders the construction of a clone army. Then, as Palpatine, he engineers the discovery of the separatist army. This discovery turns the separatists into something other than a bunch of systems that want small government--they become a force that is ready to attack the Replublic. Then, Palpatine is able to manipulate a weak-minded senator into pushing him into power in service of the cause of defending against the separatists. Palpatine is then able to call on the thing that he wanted all along: his army of efficient, obedient killing machines. The separatists are not earnest capitalists seeking the freedom of a laissez-faire government to bring themselves prosperity, they are dupes of a man with designs on nothing less than absolute power. By the time Palpatine is done he will have destroyed those separatists right along with the Republic.
I could go on, but you get the point. The author has taken the Star Wars story and used it in an attempt to weave his own little tale about how big government is bad. But by glossing over atrocities such as the wholesale murder of millions of people, he reveals that what he really thinks is that he ought to be the government because he knows better than all us stupid, little people. We should all do as he says, and if we don't like it, he won't mind killing us in the name of the greater good (of which he is sole arbiter). Frankly, I'll take freedom.
Obviously the USA was wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly the World Trade Center was a military installation, armed to the teeth with laser turrets and weapons of mass destruction and thus was a legitimate target for the loveable ragtag group of muslim rebels.
The Vietnam comparisons are also striking, though the 1,000,000 vietnamese who died in that war may disagree about how much "creaming" went on. Also those of you who have seen the Jedi DVD extras know there is that one deleted scene where the Ewoks capture a storm trooper, starve him and pierce his eardrum with a sharpened stick of bamboo in order to get him to talk about troop movements. Clearly a parallel there.
Re:The Empire is the USA ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Empire is the USA ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll take the bait on this one. I've got nothing else to do at the moment.
The o-so slight difference between Alderaan and Hiroshima can be summed up in 3 characters - WW2. WW2 included Pearl Harbor, Midway, Iwo Jima, the Philippines, Singapore, China, etc. All these events - and many, many more - occurred BEFORE Hiroshima. There were Japanese offensives, American offensives, British offensives, etc. There were many nations locked in a war to gain control of a large space (the Pacific and Asia in general), which, incidentally, none of them owned by right of habitation. Neither the Japanese, the British nor the Americans had any real claim to the Pacific space other than the one claim which has always really mattered in the end - might is right.
So to plop down Alderaan and Hiroshima together as if they were the same kind of event removes Hiroshima from a very real historical context and reduces it the banality of a Hollywood script, the script in question being Star Wars. Star Wars is great stuff, but it doesn't hold a candle to real life and real history.
But I think to use the Alderaan/Hiroshima analogy to support your Empire/US argument I think you've got to show:
1) Alderaan and the Empire were at war openly. Just because some rebels come from Alderaan doesn't mean that it is at war with the Empire.
2) Alderaan's Pearl Harbor and Midway. Those were huge battles and even after Midway it wasn't clear the US was in a dominant position. When do Alderaan's forces challenge the Empire in open conflict? They don't. OK. Assume for a minute that the rebels are controlled by Alderaan (which is not true), then you still never see them do anything but run from Imperial forces. They only fight when cornered. That is not what the Japanese did. Very different. The Japanese were a full-fledged opponent, with a native technology industry and a prior record of victory in battle. Whether you think using the bomb was correct or not, you can't argue against the fact that it resulted from a full scale war. It was used to put an end to a conflict quickly, not to stop a conflict from growing out of control.
Frankly, I don't see the people of Alderaan having threatened the Empire quite the same way the Japanese threatened the US and England. So your comparison rings hollow.
But hell, I haven't seen episode 2(?) yet so maybe it will all become clear to me...
Does this explain why... (Score:4, Insightful)
My take is that the Empire was supposed to happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
What is necessary to return the "Light Side" to the proper state is that the republic needs to be returned to its roots and original purpose. For this to happen, it must be destroyed and rebuilt.
The Emperor and his regime destroy the republic, and it is Luke Skywalker and the Rebel Alliance that rebuild it. Anakin is central to this in that he is the one who enables all of this to happen.
By becoming Vader, he helps Palpatine destroy the republic. Palpatine isn't a good guy who wants to bring order for the common good. He wants to bring order so he can rule the galaxy. By killing the Emperor, Vader fulfills the prophecy as the one who brings balance to the force. Presumably, the Rebel Alliance forms a new republic that has the restored ideals of the original. And perhance is a little wiser than the old as to not let anything like the Empire happen again.
Re:Points (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Points (Score:2, Insightful)
Attacks on civilian populations have always part of warfare, and the twentieth century brought that to its ultimate logical conclusion with, for example, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
Everybody kills or injures civilians and 'sows terror', justifying it either because they are deperate and feel they have no other options, or by calling it 'collateral damage'.
Tell me, for example, were the ANC terrorists in the 1980s? The South African government said they were, and they did target civilians.
A terrorist, apparently, is someone fighting for something you disagree with and doesn't have the resources to buy a long-range bomber or a nuclear submarine.
Re:Talking about manure (Score:2, Insightful)
No rational military wastes effort (and expensive bombs) on civilian targets, because ATTACKING CIVILIANS DOESN'T WORK. It just pisses them off. Taking out the capability for the other side to defend/attack is where it's at.
This is the difference between what Palestinians do when they kill Jews sitting down for a religious meal (this is attacking civilians for the anti-Semites in the audience), and what the Israeli government did when it took out the bomb factories and bomb makers in the West Bank (this is attacking military targets).
Notice the results, too. The Passover Massacre led to the full-scale attack on the West Bank. Despite massive coverage in the Western media of the 300 or so Israelis who refused to serve, somehow the same media outlets didn't notice the 3,000+ people who volunteered even when not called up, as well as the higher-than-usual response from Israelis called up to service. Meanwhile, there has been all of one suicide bomb attack in a month, down from one a day. That's results. Attack military targets, get military results.
This is also part of the reason why the Nazi were insane. Rather than concentrating on, oh, the war, they were spending resources on gassing Jews.
The reason why most countries used high altitude bombers was that (1) it mostly, kinda worked and (2) it protects your own guys. Now that bombs are getting smarter, this is less and less of an issue.
Calling the US a terrorist regime is the worst kind of doublespeak. I take it that you are a worshiper of Noam Chomsky, who proclaimed that the Cambodian genocide was a myth and just makes up quotes and figures when reality doesn't serve his agenda. Funny how he likes living in pampered luxury in that terrorist regime.
-jon
Re:Pinochet...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pinochet then siezes power, and a decade later holds free elections, and surrenders power peacably when he loses them.
Which of the two is pro-democracy again?
The empire is benign? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's a hard argument to make. In the 3 films that come after the empire, we never get a chance to see what the daily life of an average, law-abiding citizen is like. The films mostly follow the rebel alliance, which hides out on remote/uninhabited planets. Check out the different settings used in the movies:
Tatoonine: A remote outer rim planet, where the Empire doesn't really have any control (nor do they want it).
Hoth: Apparently the only creatures that live here are tau-tauns and those Sasquatch things.
Bespin: The only "normal" place shown in the 3 movies. We don't really see the Empire's presence here. However, it must be really bad: Lando turns over his best friend to Darth Vader just to get the Empire to leave him alone.
Endor moon: Nothing here but Ewoks, and they probably deserve whatever punishment the Empire can dish out.
Alderaan: Destroyed by the Empire as part of a negotiating tactic with Princess Leia.
I doubt this guy really thinks the Empire is better than the Rebel Alliance. He might be turned off by the more egalitarian and liberal ideas espoused by the Rebels, but to make the stretch and claim that the Empire is a force for good is deeply disturbing. Star Wars may be an imaginary universe, but The Weekly Standard certainly is real, and it has a real effect(albeit a small one) on political discourse in the United States. If the editors of a major magazine think the Empire is ok, it casts great doubt on their analysis of events in the real world.
-Mike
Re:"War On Terror Not Over Yet", Emperor Declares (Score:2, Insightful)
Nevertheless, I found the article very funny and original.