Author	Topic:   Rebellion or Empire?
Darth Tine	posted 3/20/03 6:59 PM     Ok, first.. Why am I the one who posts all the new topics? Is there something wrong with you guys?(I won't answer that) So the question is, Rebellion or Empire? I thought that we could do some comparisons. Both have their strong and weak points. First comparison:Main Capital ships. 1. The rebellion's Mon Calamari Cruiser. Beautiful. There is no denying it. To look at the mon calamari cruiser is to see the best of mon calamari design. Each ship is very invidiual, with the beautiful flowing lines and seemingly randomly placed pods, no two ships are alike. And beneath that gentle exterior is a star ship with incredible power. Multiple turbolaser batteries(I couldn't find exactly how many) and at least 3 sheild generaters, the mon calamari cruiser is a ship to be reckoned with. (I have to go, I will do the Imperial Star destroyer later. NONE of you, I repeat NONE of you are allowed to do it for me. Make your own comparisons)
Dark Death Dude	posted 3/20/03 7:53 PM     Stormtroopers Vs. Rebel Troopers. I don't think there's much of a debate here. Stormies have bigger blasters, More armor, and better training. Plus they look cooler.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 3/20/03 11:31 PM       Imperial Uniforms vs. Rebel Alliance Uniforms No contest! The Imperial troops, particularly their officers, look tough, disciplined and professional. The Rebels, on the other hand, walking around in their dressing gowns and jim-jams, look like they've all come round for a sleep-over!
Darth Tine	posted 3/21/03 6:18 PM     2. The Imperial-class Mark I Star Destroyer. The star destroyer makes up the bulk of the Imperial fleet, It is the symbol of Imperial might and power. When someone looks at the Star Destroyer, no matter who you are, there is always the moment of shocked silence, a feeling of awe that man could make such a thing, and fear of what it could do to you and those you love. Compared to the Mon Calamari cruiser the star destroyer is plain and even a little ugly. But it has it's own beauty in the symplistic lines and triangular shape. When you look closer, you realiz(s)e that the ship isn't that simple after all, but has it's own intricacys that are not as readily apparent. This ship is no upgraded pleasure yacht, such as the mon cal, but a ship built for one reason, to kill. When you look at it you need no demonstration for proof of this, to see it is to know it's purpose. The Imperial Mark I Star Destroyer is outfitted with 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannon batteries and ten tracter beam projectors. It carries a full storm trooper division, 20 AT-ATs, 30 AT-STs, eight lambda-class shuttles, 12 landing barges, and six TIE fighter squadrons. It is 1,600 meters long. The imperial star destroyer is the ultimate of the main capital ships and is by far the better of the two. (I could be a bit biased.)
Da Wookie	posted 3/21/03 8:04 PM     O.k. Rebel Politics vs. Imperial Politics. 1. The Rebels use a republican from of government (at least the do after endor) the sit down and vote on vital issues, not alway making a decision quickly, but they do what is best for the most people. There is often arguements to what is right with no real authority figure to calm things down. People have freedom to withdraw from the alliance as they see fit. 2. The Imperial form is a malevolent dictatorship. one ruler, the Emperor, rules with an Iron fist. he has a very layered form of goverment that uses fear to keep systems in line. those that disagree are killed by the Imperial military. there is no assembly of political leaders, the highest report directly to the emperor and do as he says, while the lesser officials follow the lead of the Grand Moffs.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 3/22/03 3:07 PM       Re: Rebel Politics vs. Imperial Politics Combine the two - apolitical monarch + elected government = constitutional monarchy. The best of both worlds. See Walter Bagehot's "The English Constitution" for details :-)
Dark Death Dude	posted 3/22/03 4:53 PM     Or you could just let everything go without a government and see what happens.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 3/22/03 5:20 PM       "Hmmm, anarchy, riiiight. Very interesting. Please, DDD, do tell me more..." <
Dark Death Dude	posted 3/25/03 4:01 PM     Well, it'll save people a lot more money, plus with no dominant force in the galaxy, it's prone to be taken over eventually, were they can set up a government of there own and cost THEM a lot of money. It's a great idea.
iloveyouiknow	posted 3/25/03 7:42 PM     Rebel fan (Da Wookie) vs. Imperial fan (Grand Moff Andy) No question here, Da Wookie wins hands down. Political: Da Wookie is a citizen of the most powerful country in the world, the USA and, unlike GMA does not give wimpy reasons why his country is better, for the simple reason that he doesn't have to. Physical: Tom is tall, and makes lightsabers in his spare time. GMA is ugly and enjoys chasing Aims around in his spare time. Emotional: Nothing gets Da Wookie bummed out, and if you are the one-in-a-million theing that makes him mad, look to lose an arm. GMA on the other hand has been seen to repeatedly upset everytime somebod bashes him or his country, in short, GMA is a baby. Knowledge: Da Wookie is probably THE best Star Wars knowledge person I know, he could even give you the body base for the Space Slug! GMA seems to think that the theorys and stuff are more important to which I say blah.
iloveyouiknow	posted 3/25/03 7:52 PM     (No offense GMA, now that I've got that said, I'll leave you alone)
Darth Tine	posted 3/26/03 1:55 AM     Ouch! Thats just mean! If you had said that kind of thing to me Gregory, you would have regreted it. What has GMA ever done to you? And for that matter, how do you know that he is ugly? And how do you know that Tom is taller than he is? He could be seven feet tall for all that you know. We will probably never know, because even if he tells us, we still couldn't translate it from meters and centimeters to feet and inches.(or at least I couldn't)
Grand Moff Andy	posted 3/26/03 2:05 PM       For your benefit, Darth Tine, I am English and don't use the metric system, which I find equally baffling. I am 6ft1. To ILYIK I would say that for you to add "no offence" is a damn cheek. How am I not supposed to take offence at the plethora of abuse you just launched at me? 1. I have never denied that the US is a powerful, if not THE most powerful, country in the world today. I merely pointed out that it hasn't always been and that more powerful countries have fallen in the past. I was merely cautioning against arrogance, something the British no all about. 2. I have never given "wimpy reasons" why my country is "better". I would, however, strongly insist that my country is in no way inferior to yours. We were building ships and conquering the seas when you guys were still English! 3. I do not 'chase' Aims and that scurrilous remark is as beneath me as it should be beneath you. I do not intend to comment on whether or not I'm ugly. You clearly know something I don't. You have crossed a line with that comment. I shall not forget it. 4. I am not a baby, I'm a patriot and make no apology for it. I seek no popularity from my defence of my country. I'd defend it anyway. 5. I think you're a cretin.
Darth Tine	posted 3/26/03 5:31 PM     He's really offended. I think that you owe him an apology ILIK, even if you don't like him, what you said was entirely uncalled for. So I'll shutup now and let your consience work for you. You do have one, right? Just kidding!:)(Oh, and by the way, GMA, Tom thinks that he's 6 foot 1 too. But he's not to sure)
iloveyouiknow	posted 3/27/03 10:20 PM     Dude, the only reason I was ripping on you was that you were over there saying how bad the US is and how great Britain is and nobody was doing anything about it! Can I help it if I'm a patriot? But if, like you say, you spend half your time defending the U.S. then I find that I must let the issue go, which is as close as I come to apologizing. I quote John Wayne from the movie She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness" So let's end the country feud here, shall we?
Grand Moff Andy	posted 3/27/03 10:46 PM       It seems that you and I finally agree on something, Gregory. Neither of us is prepared to allow our country to be slandered. I do indeed devote half my time to the aforementioned pastime and I maintain my pro-American views. I therefore accept your apology-ish type thing and hope that you will accept my apologies for anything I may have said to offend either you or your country. I offer a FULL apology, as I do not see apologising as a sign of weakness, rather, as a sign of intellectual maturity - we all need to admit we're wrong every now and again to keep us in touch with the real world and to remind outselves that none of us is a superhuman.
Dark Death Dude	posted 3/27/03 11:37 PM     Except me. Oh, did I say that out loud? Anyway, I think you guys are just being a bunch of Loosahs.
Dark Death Dude	posted 4/1/03 10:55 PM     My posts seem to do a good job stopping the coversation, don't they?
Darth Tine	posted 4/2/03 11:52 PM     That's because we are all struck dumb by your stupidity. Umm... if there is a wierd post before this one that's 'cus I might have pushed the wrong button.
Darth Tine	posted 4/4/03 7:01 PM     Ok... Come on... The rebellion has to win one of these! Someone do the fighters. You know TIE vs. X-Wing.
Dark Death Dude	posted 4/7/03 2:56 AM     are you really struck dumb by my stupidity?
Darth Tine	posted 4/10/03 4:20 PM       Yes, but it's dumb as in mute, not dumb as in idiotic.
Darth Tine	posted 4/10/03 4:20 PM       Yes, but it's dumb as in mute, not dumb as in idiotic.
Dark Death Dude	posted 4/14/03 3:14 PM     I thought it was the other way around. And to keep the topic going, the Empire should have won the civil war, it's just that THe rebellion got lucky.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 4/14/03 3:36 PM       True. It's the same with our own civil war. If Charles I's Cavaliers had a bit more luck then we'd have been spared the despotic Interregnum of the tyrant Oliver Cromwell (the so-called "Commonwealth", Britain's first and, hopefully, last flirtation with quasi-republican government). BTW, not wanting to cause a fight, but the old American Revolution is pretty much the same story. That and the fact that Cornwallis was an idiot. You guys got lucky but I'm happy for you :-)... kinda
DarthTine	posted 4/15/03 4:54 PM       Thanks. But of course, our civil war was completly different. The Union was in the right of it the whole time. The south should have given up when they had the chance, after all, how could they stand against the leadership of Illinois' very own General Grant? Or (once again Illinois') supremely gifted Abe Lincoln? (Do you sense some biasness on my part?) But, Ok, I don't really think all that, in my opinion the south had the right to secede. They just did a poor job of it.(I always felt sorry for Lee.)
Dark Death Dude	posted 4/16/03 10:41 PM     Actually Darth Tine, the South was winning until Gettysburg. We whooped their butt's there.
Darth Tine	posted 4/18/03 0:41 AM     Duh Bob, like I didn't know that.:) But to go back to the Revolution, Want to know what my Idiot brother thinks? He thinks that we should go to you English and apologize for the Declaration of Independence, say that we didn't really mean it, and become Britain's Super Colony. The problem with that though, (besides the obvious) Is that I don't think you'd take us back.;)
Grand Moff Andy	posted 4/19/03 4:15 PM       It doesn't sound very likely, no. I don't think we would 'take you back' either. The days of having subserviant colonies is, sadly, long gone. However, the path of union remains open. We're being a bit facetious but here in Europe people are constantly banging on about unifying Europe. Well, what's to stop Britain and America unifying? We already have the special Anglo-American relationship, various Memoranda of Understanding between the UKUSA countries (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) with our unique intelligence sharing relationship. I would very much welcome a strengthening of the Commonwealth of Nations - perhaps including the membership of the US - as a rival to the European Union, which is dominated by France and Germany (or "old Europe" as Donald Rumsfeld calls them). I've always said that if Britain joins any new currency it should be the US dollar! George Washington on one side and the Queen on the other!
Dark Death Dude	posted 4/21/03 5:31 PM     That's a possibility. Go to Whitehouse.gov and e-mail president Bush about it.
Darth Tine	posted 4/22/03 2:29 AM     I don't think that he would go for it. We Americans are too fond of our independence.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 4/22/03 2:45 PM       I don't really think it's my place to go offering membership of the Commonwealth willy-nilly to whoever - the Queen kinda' likes to take care of that stuff herself, I'm not too sure whether she'd be all that keen on a 21-year-old student doing it for her. I'll think about it. Maybe I'll suggest to President Bush that the US might like to apply to the Commonwealth Secretariat, at Marlborough House, for membership. Couldn't hurt to ask.
iloveyouiknow	posted 4/23/03 11:26 PM     (wave of hand) We do not need your dirty hands on our money.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 4/24/03 4:11 PM       Well of course you don't! The idea of various countries unifying their currencies is ridiculous! Especially the idea of Britain having a unified currency with France, Germany and all the rest (i.e., the Euro). We wouldn't even be able to control our own interest rates! The Germans are in trouble because of it, as is the Irish Republic. In fact, most of the countries that have taken on the Euro hate it. Britain is the fourth riches country in the world, I think we'll be okay without it! BTW: You seem to have misunderstood me anyway. We wouldn't be taking 'your' money - we'd merely be abandoning pound sterling in favour of a new 'UK Dollar', which would actually make some sense, as we trade more with the US than anyone else. And watch who you're calling grubby, sweaty yank! grrr
Darth Tine	posted 4/25/03 5:02 PM       You know... I've never actually considered myself to be a yankee. I guess I always thought that everybody east of Indiana is a yankee, everybody west of Nevada are wackos, everbody west of Nebraska are cowpokes, all those who live south of the great state of Illinois are Red necks or hillbillys, people from Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and the Dakotas are hicks, and people north of Illinois are yoopers. But I am just a normal freedom loving American.
iloveyouiknow	posted 4/25/03 10:29 PM     I like the waqy that was said......
Grand Moff Andy	posted 4/25/03 11:22 PM       Well, it's the same here you know. You guys may call us limeys but we have plenty of names for eachother. The Scots are generally referred to as 'jocks', the Welsh are 'taffies', the Irish are 'paddies', there are also some less civil nicknames. As in so many of these cases, the one making up all the nicknames doesn't have one himself, so I have no idea what the English are called - at least I can't think of any that I can print here. Of course you also have brummies (from Birmingham), mancs (Manchester) or scoucers (Liverpool). Northerners and Southerners (in England that is) famously dislike each other. In fact, it's amazing this Kingdom is united at all! Recent surveys show that most people in Britain actually detest the Welsh more than the French!
Darth Tine	posted 4/29/03 10:59 PM     Ouch! That's cruel! And unbelievable! I mean come on... Besides people from New York, California, Florida, etc., who could possibly be worse than the French? The only good thing they did, is help us win the Revolutionary war and give us the Statue of Liberty. And in Gratitude, We saved them in World war I, and II, but are they grateful? No, they stick us in the back.
Dark Death Dude	posted 4/30/03 2:01 AM     Well phrased, my young padawan.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 4/30/03 8:15 PM       The French are gutless, Nazi-collaborating, good-for-nothings! But that's just my humble opinion. England and France have hated each other for centuries - we kicked their arses in Waterloo! In fact, ever since Napoleon left, they've just been this annoying, bitter next-door neighbour. They were rubbish in the last two wars, especially WWII when they helped the Germans and handed over their navy - even the so-called Free-French in London, under that idiot de Gaulle, were a pain in the backside. We liberated their damn country and a few months ago they desecrated British war graves in France, don't know if you heard. I hate the French, they're the scum of the Earth!
Dark Death Dude	posted 5/1/03 3:00 PM     Next time the French get taken over, we won't be there to help them out this time. Unless politics mess everything up, of course.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 5/1/03 5:54 PM       Oh no, we'd have to: just so we can keep throwing it back in their smug, frog-eating faces! "There you go, Johnny Foreigner. Saved you again. So now we're even: by the way, when was the last time the French saved the English? Oh, wait, now I remember. You NEVER have - we keep bailing you out, when we're not beating the snot out of you on the battlefield or ignoring you politically. How silly of me! Ha ha!"
Dark Death Dude	posted 5/14/03 2:04 AM     Uh, yeah.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 5/14/03 6:40 PM       Yeh, sorry. Kinda' went a bit nutty there didn't I? In my defence, I was still smarting from the desecration of British war graves in France, which happened in early April - and still am! Don't know if you guys over in America heard about it did you? If not go to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/02/wfra02.xml for details. It was plain evil!
Darth Tine	posted 5/15/03 3:43 PM     Nope didn't hear a word about it. I might have if i'd ever read the world section of the newspaper, but I don't. They probably didn't print it anyway. We are still smartin' over the fact that the French sold missles and stuff to the Iraqis. And that they've given away passports to iraqi refugees. The jerks.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 5/15/03 8:41 PM       Well, I wouldn't get too complacent, Tine. I know for a fact that British defence contractors have sold weapons to Iraq, as have many other countries, including the US I might add. Indeed, it's a well-known fact that Saddam was once in the employ of the CIA (they hired him to assassinate another Iraqi dictator in his youth but he bungled it and even managed to shoot himself in the foot!). However, all these years later, it's irrelevent in my opinion (although the anti-war lobby go on about it). I don't really see the hypocrisy they cite here, being as I am a follower of the realist school of international relations: the West didn't like the Iraqi regime, we used Saddam to get rid of it, he later became the problem. The peaceniks kept chanting that we put Saddam there in the first place, to which I replied (to many of my university chums), "Well, by that reasoning it's incumbant upon us to remove him". It is true, however, as you suggest, that the French (and the Germans and the Russians) have behaved very shadily over the whole issue of Gulf War II. Germany, Russia and France all had lucrative oil contracts with Saddam and were owed billions by the regime. There motives were hardly driven by some wishy-washy liberal pacifism.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 5/17/03 0:10 AM       A little French history lesson for you: War and the French Battles fought ???? The French armies of the past have had their arses kicked by just about every other country in the world. Let's take a look at the mighty French military prowess. GALLIC WARS Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years of French history, France is conquered by of all things, an Italian. HUNDRED YEARS WAR Mostly lost, Saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare: "France's armies are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman." ITALIAN WARS Lost. France becomes the first and only country to ever lose two wars when fighting Italians. Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots. THIRTY YEARS WAR France is technically not a participant, but manages to get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her. WAR OF DEVOLUTION Tied. Frenchmen take to wearing red flowerpots as chapeaux. THE DUTCH WAR Tied WAR OF THE AUGSBURG LEAGUE/KING WILLIAM'S WAR/FRENCH AND INDIAN WAR Lost, But claimed as a tie. Three ties in a row induces deluded Frogophiles the world over to label the period as the height of French military power. WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION Lost. The War also gave the French their first taste of a Marlboro, which they have loved ever since. AMERICAN REVOLUTION In a move that will become quite familiar to future Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists saw far more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads to the Second Rule of French Warfare: "France only wins when America does most of the fighting." FRENCH REVOLUTION Won, Primarily due the fact that the opponent was also French. THE NAPOLEONIC WARS Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!) due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer. THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR Lost. Germany first plays the role of drunk Frat boy to France's ugly girl home alone on a Saturday night. WORLD WAR I Tied and pissing their pants on the way to losing, France is saved by the West. WORLD WAR II Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain just as they finish learning the Horst Wessel Song. WAR IN INDOCHINA Lost. French forces plead sickness, take to bed with the Dien Bien Flu. ALGERIAN REBELLION Lost. Loss marks the first defeat of a western army by a Non-Turkic Muslim force since the Crusades, and produces the First Rule of Muslim Warfare: "We can always beat the French." This rule is identical to the First Rules of the Italians, Russians, Germans, English, Dutch, Spanish, Vietnamese and Esquimaux. WAR ON TERRORISM France, keeping in mind its recent history, surrenders to Germans and Muslims just to be safe. Attempts to surrender to Vietnamese ambassador fail after he takes refuge in a McDonald's. The question for any country silly enough to count on the French should not be "Can we count on the French?", but rather "How long until France surrenders?"
Dark Death Dude	posted 5/19/03 4:40 PM     I didn't have time to read all of that, but I'm sure it's relevant.
Grand Moff Andy	posted 5/20/03 1:11 AM       Not sure how relevent it is but it's funny. Well worth reading if you've got a mo.
iloveyouiknow	posted 5/20/03 3:23 AM     It's not only funny but, sadder than the scene where Shmi dies, true.
iloveyouiknow	posted 5/29/03 5:43 PM     Ease of Food consumption: The Alliance would have to win this one. While in the line of fire you usually don't want to take your helmet off. Stormie's would have to shove the food up the little space between their chin and the mask, a rather time consuming process. Rebel troops, on the other hand, have open fronts. Making it easy for them to cram while they unjam their blasters.

back to Comlink Main  | Post New Topic