Is the Alliance Evil? (Firefly)
 

I watched Serenity recently and while it was entertaining it certainly wasn't worthy of multiple viewings at $10 a pop as some fans have done but that's neither here nor there. My question is whether the Alliance as portrayed in the series and movie can be considered evil?

By evil let us define the standard. The Empire in Star Wars is evil. The Federation in Star Trek (communist tendencies aside) is not evil. Consider those your happy extremes.

In the commentary for Serenity the director made a very interesting observation. He says that the only real bad thing about the Alliance is that it is trying to tell people what to do even though what they are telling them to do is obstensively good for them no government or institution should tell people what to do.

This leads to the thought - The Alliance is not evil merely what they're trying to do, control and manipulate people's behavior can be considered evil - and even then a case can be made for it being misguided and it wouldn't be the first government to think it knew what was better for its people than its own people.

But then you have things like the experiments on River and the Pax experiment that went and created the Reavers. Those can definitely be considered evil.

But hasn't every government in history carried out covert operations and experiments to try and make things better? Does that make every government in history evil?

Wouldn't the end result of the Pax been good - ie. happy people everywhere? or is it an abomination of thought control?

What are your thoughts? Examples from the series and movie are welcome.

The Alliance is evil, perhaps in the worst way...

It's the perfect example of what happens when a government gains too much power and tries to create a utopian society. The Alliance didn't develop PAX to make people happy, it was to make everyone docile. It back-fired, but if it had worked the people would have no aggressive tendencies. Therefore, no one could ever rise up and overthrow the corrupt government.

The Alliance is the worst kind of evil, by masking itself as "something better".

If you're not aggressive, does that mean you cannot reason if your government is/isn't bad? If you could, could you not overthrow them without violent means? Perhaps you could use their treatment against them?

Not when the government is corrupt and has the physical power to put down any form of resistance.

I don't think this was the purpose of their tests there. Look at how the populations of all the other planets we see in the series live, how the people on these planets treat each other. I think the reason that they were trying to make people chill out was so that they'd treat each other better, behave with more civility. If people aren't acting like complete no-class jackasses towards each other, then the Alliance can reduce head count in the military and law enforcement agencies, which would significantly cut costs. They could then funnel the cost savings into other programs that would be beneficial to its citizens {and also increased salaries for high ranking government officials, but that is neither here nor there}.

My thought is that intellectual power could defeat them. Surely history has shown that such great tasks have to be done with brute force, but similarly a great deal of thought goes into using such force. The atomic bomb had to be devised and built before it was deployed, even if it destroyed a massive radius of people and buildings.


Think to Star Wars episodes I-III and Palpatine's rise to power. Surely people fought and died, but the creation of the Empire was actually just Palpatine's carefully planned manipulation of what was already in place. Could he have really accomplished the same ends with physical power alone?

That said, my belief is that with the right planning and reasoning, they could devise a way to overthrow the government without actually engaging in battle.

If you watch the series the Alliance has obviously been doing far more experiments than just Pax and River. The men with blue hands (who I really wish had been explained in the movie) had that device which could kill everyone in a room without so much as a sound. They hadn't been in power for all that long (6 years since the end of the war according to the Unification Day episode) and they were simply going through the steps of preventing any future uprisings. I would say that a government who erases people that question them and any of their "mistakes" is pretty evil, and the subtlety hiding that can only last so long.

Going along with RJ's original questions, I first of all do not agree with the director's statement that a government should not tell people what to do, especially when it is in their (the people's) best interest. This is a bunch of bull crap. Seatbelt laws, drinking laws, smoking laws, public conduct laws, etc. Of course there are (and should be) limits to which these types of laws should be allowed to extend to.

Nonetheless, it is the means in which a government attempts to implement and enforce these laws which can lead to a government becoming evil.
Basically, the ends do not justify the means.

I think the society the Alliance was trying to create was more on the Orwellian side of things though. Not as extreme since the system was still young, but they were trying to do a lot more than public safety laws. A lot of things can be done in someone's best interest on paper, but in practice it has a lot of drawbacks that aren't so nice.

Ok. I just saw the movie, and I had not seen the series.
However, this again harkens back to what I was saying about the ends do not justify the means.

I think the alliance was evil in the mere fact that they had a vision of what perfection was... and wouldn't let their vision be compremised. They were close minded communist that sure had the right idea of everyone getting along and no one fighting but did it the wrong way.

ANd in that sense they were evil. They're closed minded bigotry was what made them into evil....there.

Why'd you have to throw "communist" into your argument.

I don't think The Allience was communist at all. They had this idea that they were civilized and everyone else were just savages. You had to be who they wanted you to be, which left no room for true free will. It wasn't overtly restrictive, but they gave you just enough room to provide the illusion of freedom.

The Alliance wasn't evil, so much as it represented an orderly, socialist ideal. Life in the Alliance was a paradise, supplemented by a system-wide tax base. Yet this selfless, socialistic paradise could not perpetuate itself due to the self interests of individuals, which always strive for personal attainment.

To that end, the Alliance developed the PAX, so that people would lose that sense of self and become cogs in a perfect, orderly society. Yet when people exposed to the PAX lost their sense of self, for the purposes of my argument, they lost their chaotic tendencies. Ultimately our sense of self is tied to survival instincts. It's our base need for emotions, materials, and nourishment that drive people to put themselves before others, as well as to create. When people lost that, they lost their will to live. Why should one need nourishment when one has no impulse for it?

Alternatively, the people who reacted negatively to the PAX lost all sense of order, or ego. The Reavers had become the ultimate primal parts of humans, where their survival instinct became paramount, and nothing but their self remained. It is because Reavers had selfish tendencies, I suspect, that they were able to survive as collectives out in space, as the Reavers recognized that they would tear each other apart, and needed to cooperate on some base level to guarantee their survival.

I may be giving too much credit to the creator, but I think my assessment of the Reavers makes sense.

Ultimately, the purpose behind the Alliance's development of the PAX was good, in that they wanted to create "A World Without Sin," yet it's because of their idealism that they lost their understanding of human nature, and as a result unleashed the Reavers onto the rim worlds.

The Alliance is more an example of an entity that doesn't want to be realistic than a legitimately malevolent government.

As for Eleo's theory. Assuming that people lost their violent tendencies, the only way for them to overcome violent force would be to do so by proxy, like say, robots.

Wow, some nice (even deep!) sociological discussions going on here! I plan to write a paper on the movie/TV series this semester, so the more the merrier :D

It seems to me that calling the Alliance "communist" or "fascist" is simply splitting hairs; the central tenet seems to be highly organized and centralized government at the expense of local autonomy. The emphasis was on order above all else; other arrangements would be tolerated as long as they didn't disturb the peace. This can be seen in the widespread corruption among Alliance officials, as well as the numerous petty theives and crooks, even in the central planets. As long as there's no major disruption, this sort of behavior is tolerated.

At the same time, it's clear that the Alliance government, though nominally democratic, heavily favors the more developed central planets like Ariel. I imagine this being a sort of bureaucratic bias; the inner planets are more populous, with more representation, and more power in the parliament. As a result, they get the lion's share of the taxes. One can easily see how such an arrangement might have led to civil war.

The "evil" is more of a bureaucratic than a totalitarian evil; bad things are done because they're approved by faceless bureaucrats who never have to deal with the consequences of their actions. The civil war, for example, was clearly a war of conquest, taking back territories held by the Independants. This would have left the parliamentary leaders far behind the lines, free to order heavy bombardments and chemical weapon attacks in the interest of the greater good.

The PAX, in my view, was a way to prevent further factionalism and civil war, to retain the preferential treatment of the core worlds. If people are always happy, what do they care if money and resources are siphoned off? Similarly, when the Reavers emerge, their numbers (about 30,000) are too small to be a serious threat to the Alliance as a whole; the bureaucrats therfore find it convenient to do nothing.

The evil, then, is a faceless evil, the sort that anyone might be succeptible to if granted sufficient power and distanced from the people the power effects.

But how do we classify evil? Is it truly evil what the Alliance leaders did? If it was, then what the Alliance did during the war of independance was no better than the American Civil War.

Think about it. What does a faceless, nameless, uknown Alliance leader honestly need? He's already one of the most powerful man or woman in the Alliance. Anything he or she wants is readily at his disposal. What recourse is there, then? The preservation of the status quo, or as it was during the war, the preservation of the state. If the Alliance dissolved, then so does the possibility that they can keep their positions.

Even assuming that these faceless beurocrats were accountable to a constituency, the actions they ordered would have caused them no consequence, as their constituents would've recognized the need to maintain Alliance sovereignty. If the Rim Worlds could declare their independance, what's to stop the core worlds from doing so? That was essentially the crux behind Northern reasoning for the Civil War. If states were allowed to secede, then the Union could not stand, because when the states collectivised their power, they could become a powerful nation.

The same can be said for the Alliance. Why should the Alliance allow these insolent rabble autonomous government? They've lived under the Alliance umbrella for years, and now they don't want a part of it? Well nuts to that.

Is it truly evil when Alliance heads ordered brutal measures to preserve the state? Did preserving the Alliance not ultimately benefit the greater good? The Alliance heads to me, are much like Darth Vader. Not really evil, so much as they are esoteric Straussians.

You've answered your question right there. If you have to listen to a commentary track to get that kind of plot point - theres some weak-ass writing involved.

Anyone who can give you a definitive answer as to if the Alliance is "evil" or "good" is full of shit, flat out. There isn't enough in the series or Serenity to prove either side - just a lot of vauge points and some personal vendettas.

If you want to take it so far, don't forget that the series/movie was made after Whedon had read The Killer Angels, which is about the end of the American Civil War. Now, Whedon took that, stuck it in space, put it smack in the middle of what would've been the Reformation/Reconstruction Era.

Do you think Johnny Rebs liked Yanks 5, 10, 50, 100 years after the war ended? Fuck no - some of them still don't like us. And Mal doesn't like the Alliance for the same reasoning. That doesn't make him right, that makes him biased and people are all too willing to take shit for face value on the internet.

However, Whedon has this lovely habit of having a good idea and not taking it nearly far enough. The show should be about Mal being biased, not him being right - just like how The X-Files got awful in Season 4 because Mulder was right instead of paranoid. (Then again, Firefly gave us River Tam - a walking McGuffin. Way to be subtle or intelligent, Joss)

Shouldn't that be inadvertently presenting the room for a good idea while not actually focusing on it? The show and movie, are, after all, biased towards Mal.

The show needs a characterization center, sure. But the idea that Mal is right is not good characterization. If you're going to watch a show because you know the hero is right all the time, I bet you you're going to have a short-lived, boring program.

Heres an example: In that episode "The Train Job" Mal and Zoe steal some vaccines that are needed by civies, right? Now, they give them back and thats all well and good but the interest is that they're in a morally screwy position. Risk their lives to give them the vaccine back - or go on and get paid for it?

Whedon took the easy route - Mal and Zoe gave it back. Wouldn't it have been harder and more rewarding for the viewer if you saw that Mal was this jerk who didn't give a shit? In the original pilot episode, you hear that Mal is this big jerk who makes demands and talks down to his crew and is this really staunch asshole when it comes to running his boat. But by the end of the last disc, Mal is cut down into this "lowly" stern father-figure.

Well, what I'm saying is that Mal simply being biased may have not actually been Whedon's intent. Much like how Lucas didn't intend for the Rebel Alliance to spread Galactic Anarchy after the death of the Emperor.

It's entirely possible that Whedon could've intended Mal to give off the appearance of a hardass while on the inside he's just a boyscout, and as he goes along in the show he lowers that shell.

It seems more likely to me that it's an example of cliche character development.

Given the fact that the setting of Firefly is as subtle as being bashed over the head with a cinderblock with the words "THE RESTORATION AFTER THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR IN SPACE" - it certainly *was* intended. (Notice the twang in his voice that Mal has? HELLO.)

An unfair statement for several reasons.

1.) Nothing is canon in Star Wars outside of the films, their screenplays and the radio dramas. Everything and anything is Expanded Universe and is thus left up to questioning and stupid fucking fanboys.

2.) Because EU isn't actually canon - it's a "lower tier" (UGH) of canonization - you can't prove that such a thing happened

3.) If such a thing did - which I admit was probably the case - that could just be chalked up to one of those "Hey look at this! Star Wars is mimicking real life too!" things. Like how the Republic became the Empire after an internal political struggle.

Quite possible - and ultimately a bad idea. I'd want Mal to be a nice guy just as much as I want Greedo to shoot first.

And hence - through circular logic - you came to agree with me.

Simply because Whedon ripped his idea from the restoration doesn't necessarily mean he had any intention for Mal being wrong. It's not as if the Independance was fought over slavery, and there was a clear moral pitfall for Independant ideals.

First, I'm not drawing anything from the Extended Universe. The Grand Moff Tarkin said himself that once the Senate was dissolved, each region of space would be controlled by the Governors. Each Governor has his own army and navy assigned to him for the purposes of protecting his Fief. When the Emperor dies, there's no line of succession, and the Governors would war against themselves and splinter, like what happened to the Chinese after the end of the last Dynasty.

To that end, the Rebels don't have any plans for the future, or any idea what they're going to do after the Emperor is dead. They eventually become nothing more than a catalyst for Anarchy in the Galaxy, and despite their attractive ideals, create more death and suffering than the Sith or the Moffs ever did under Imperial rule. The Alliance was wrong, and I can guarantee you that it wasn't Lucas's intent for them to be so, just like it wasn't his intent for Vader to come off as a Straussian instead of somebody legitimately evil.

You know, and I know, that any claim to the contrary is just a bunch of bullshit designed to clean up Lucas's philosophical mess.

True. But Whedon isn't above being a whore.

What can I say? I like picking nits.

Whoa, whoa, whoa - lets back up here a minute.

Firstly, you're confusing "wrong" with "underdog". Mal was the underdog, given that he was on the losing side of a war. However, that has nothing to do with my earlier attempts to say that Mal being "wrong" would have made him a more interesting character. You're trying to compare apples and Tipler's Rotating Cylinder.

Secondly, the American Civil War was *not* faught over slavery. This happened to be something that was found in hindsight - that the war proved to be beneficial in freeing black slaves from their Southern masters.

We don't know how "racist" Lincoln was because you simply couldn't be a succesful politician and an abolitionist: you would not be elected by a northern public that believed ending slavery would mean northern cities would be flooded by free blacks willing to work for slave wages (no pun intended).

In debating Kansas-Nebraska Lincoln says he opposes it because he wants the west free for whites. There's nothing else he could say, though: if he truly opposed slavery (and who knows?) and said so in public, he would never have been president. And there the proof is in the pudding -- once he has the option to constitutionally free the slaves, he does so... regardless, even, of an impending mid-term election. It's hard to argue that Lincoln was a racist under those circumstances.

Colonization (the idea to send all black slaves back to Africa) was something northern leaders in favor of abolition could claim to support without fearing public backlash... it seems, though, that everyone generally accepted that it was never a realistic possibility -- it was something they could tell the public.

What you probably know about Lincoln's support for colonization doesn't even relate to this, though -- it's one of several things he polays up *after* he makes up his mind to issue the proclamation... it's part of a very clear campaign to establish to the voting public that he is freeing the slaves out of necessity rather than out of opportunity.

Looking at the events in order, it's clear there's something else going on. He comes back from Harrison's Landing, tells Seward he's going to emancipate the slaves because it's 'right'... and then he publically asks Congress for impossibly small amounts of money for colonization and to literally buy slavery away from the border states (both of which are simply impossible)... he invites free black leaders from Washington DC and insults them in front of reporters.

What he is doing is simply trying to keep his coalition together -- he fears that if the conflict becomes a war for slaverly the army will lay down its rifles... or, even that the McClellan (a Democrat) will march into Washington and stage a coup. This seems crazy to think about today... but there's lots of evidence that it was one of Lincoln's biggest fears. In freeing the slaves but assuring the voters that he is still a racist, Lincoln engages in that seeming compromise that he's famous for... and still gets exactly what he wants.

You could also argue that the Empire turning on it's self is no better or worse than the Rebel Alliance turning on the Empire.

Though not to defuse your well-made point, we should make note that these musings are exactly the problem with Star Wars now. Somewhere between 1983 and 1993, someone thought that political upheaval and treaties and shit had to do with the Hero's Journey thats at the heart of the Star Wars saga. The fact of the matter is - Star Wars is pretty clear that the Empire is evil, so when the Imperial Fleet is obliterated over Endor, it's a good thing. Otherwise, you're going to have dopshits running around telling you that the Force is unbalanced again once Darth Vader dies, leaving Luke as the soul Jedi power in the galaxy (according to canon).

It's a mess, yes. But theres a lot of fucking subtexts in the prequels. No one bothers to bother looking at the mess because everyone doesn't want to bother thinking about anything anymore. This doesn't excuse the fact that Lucas has the narrative flow of a rock wall in the middle of a stream but there are some things that *are* there.

The Jedi Are A Bunch Of Assholes

One needs only to mention that they live in an ivory tower to make this near-literal. But then think about it this way - the Jedi allow slavery to exist unless it suits the needs of one malcontent Jedi? And how the heck are the Jedi these great negotiators if they're working "under"/with the Supreme Chancellor?

Yoda Is A Narcissistic Jerk

A lot of people blame Obi-Wan for the creation of Darth Vader, but it goes deeper than that. For all Obi-Wan's mistakes, he also trains Luke well and tells him things like "stretch out with your feelings" or "your feelings do you credit", "you must do what you feel is right" and above all "trust your feelings!". But Yoda tells us that "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate" and all that. Is Yoda lying? Manipulative?

Not to mention Yoda refuses to allow either Anakin or Luke into Jedi Knighthood because of their age. Thats usually a subtext found in cults - get them while their young, warp their minds to your ends. Is Yoda so afraid of individuality amongst his students?

(Theres a third subtext but it's only backwards compatible. Yoda warns Luke not to underestimate the power of Emperor Palpatine "or suffer your father's fate". He fails to mention - again, this is whats called 'retcon' - that Yoda himself got his ass-kicked by Palpatine in the Senate chamber. On top of that, the whole statement is pretty damned mean; he's basically telling Luke that he's going to end up a guy getting beaten down and burnt to cinder)

Anakin Has An Oedipus Complex

Anakin had a pretty stable relationship with his mother until he was taken from her by Qui-Gon. After a number of years, he starts having dreams about her (I'm not even going near that joke) and he realizes he has to save her. When he does find her, she dies in his arms before he can hear that she still loves him.

This more or less enforces Anakin's abandonment issues with women, between his mother and his relationship with his wife. Think about it - he loves Padme but only in secret? The reason this is an Oedipus complex instead of a fear of rejection/abandonment/replacement is because of Obi-Wan as the father/brother figure. Obi-Wan certainly wants whats right for Anakin (even if it's not what the Council may want, per se - because Obi-Wan wants Anakin to come to his senses about not only the Dark Side, but inadvertently Padme as well) but thats at odds with how Anakin wants to come to the same ends. (Anakin wants to save Padme through the Dark Side, Obi-Wan wants to save them both through Anakin's turning back)

He's not even a whore. He's a cocktease. The promdate that says she'll let you fuck her in the ass when you get home - but then she decides it's too late and goes to bed.

Whedon comes up with such good things and then they get run into the ground - sometimes by him, usually by others. I may never forgive him for Buffy Seasons 6 and 7 which have the narritive of someone on an acid trip and reading Slaughterhouse Five.

I didn't really need the History lesson, but no amount of historical revisioning can get around the fact that the driving issue that caused State's Rights to come to the forefront of American politics was the question of slavery. Even though the North never fought with the intent of abolishing it, it still ended up being the ultimate issue. None of the states that seceded were free states, and that's because the secessionists did so in order to protect the State's right to allow slavery.

Had Lincoln not been elected to the Presidency, who know's what would have happened, but it's not as if the Country wasn't on the verge of splintering several times before over the issue of slavery.

To that end, despite being underdogs, the South was still fighting to protect an institution that people consider to be morally wrong. Mal is never saddled with that stigma, because all the Independance ever was were underdogs.

What I've ultimately had a problem with is your verbage, since for Whedon to take the idea of Mal being wrong not far enough, he would've had to take it somewhere, i.e. Mal would have had to be wrong at some point.

That's what I'm getting at. Mal was never wrong.

That depends on how you classify the threat significance of the Alliance as a whole, which the movies don't do a lot to establish. The way they channel their headquarters from hidden base to hidden base, however, implies that they're more like the French Resistance in Space. Before the Battle of Endor, the Rebels were more of a nuisance than a legitimate threat to the sovereignty of the Empire.

If the Empire splinters, then Alliance worlds can openly announce their sovereignty, but the warring that would occur between the Moffs would be far more significant than the innumerable skirmishes between the Alliance and the Empire.

Here's the problem, though. The assumtion that the Jedi were wrong invalidates the moral dichotomy presented by the movies, in that followers of Light and Dark sides are good and evil, respectively. If the Sith were right, then how can they truly be a force of evil, when their actions create more welfare than harm?

Thats like saying we faught World War II to stop the Holocaust. While being aware that the Nazi regime was starting POW camps, no one had any clue of the utter horror of the situation put upon european Jews. In hind sight, yes, it's a good thing we won and kicked Hitler's ass - but we didn't go there to save Jews, we went there to stop the Nazis.

It's good we stopped slavery. And yes, it was an issue that divided the country - but we didn't go to war because of slavery, we went to war because of the fear of secession. "A divided house cannot stand" and the like.

Or other issues. Yes, slavery was a hot topic at the time - but it wasn't the only issue that brought the country to fight it's self.

Well, to be correct in this, we need to know what the fight was about in the first place. Perhaps I got ahead of myself - but do we ever know what the war with the Alliance was about? Theres a couple of insinuations - Mal says that the Alliance meddles in people's affairs when it has no right to - but nothing concrete. Theres never a forward statement of issues, just Mal being elusive on it.

(I want to go as far as saying that Mal is elusive because he's just a "stupid grunt" in the war - but theres also no insinuation on that either. Being elusive on a subject does not make you ignorant of it.)

I come back to the earlier point of saying - thats not interesting. Mal playing as the righteous underdog is not interesting writing. Theres no character conflict within or without.

Heres a major problem with Firefly fans: none of them can tell me why they, the viewer, hates the Alliance. They're just told to and take it at face value. I'd say "Perhaps that was something they'd expand on with season 2" but instead we get a movie that has 10 zillion plot points in it that weight down to a cartoony conspiracy. "The government kills civilians!" is about as important, timely and interesting a topic as the stupid religious stuff in Neon Super Plasma Battlestar Galactica 2003.

French Resistance In Space is pretty apt. But you're wrong about one thing - the Rebels were a threat following the destruction of the first Death Star. Hell, the opening crawl of ESB tells us this immedeately.

Well, heres a question for you - where does Endor lie? Whos the regional control? Wheres the Moff in charge of it? What fleets were there?

Theres too much we don't know to be any ounce of specific. Making assumptions in these situations has as much weight as fanfic writings.

You had me take pause with this one. But only for a moment.

See - the Jedi were wrong. Repeatedly. They thought Anakin would bring balance to the Force - well, he did but he had to slaughter everyone to do it.

Anakin says he'll protect Padme - and then he kills her.

Qui-Gon was right - Anakin is the Chosen One. But the Council resists him, especially Yoda.

See - the prequels are about how to make bad decisions. Don't Do What Johnny Don't Does. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to validate or protect the prequels any more than they need to be (I loathe Episode II) but at the same time, too many people write stuff off too quickly.

It's a cause and effect relationship. While the stated reasons were different, that doesn't mean that the source of the conflict couldn't have come from somewhere else. It's entirely different in the case of the Second World War, because we couldn't give a rat's ass what Hitler was doing to the Jews both before and after the Final Solution. Anti-Semitism wasn't an issue, because everybody was an anti-Semite.

Isn't the Alliance meddling in people's affairs enough? People declared their independance because they didn't want to be ruled by the Alliance, and they did so for a myriad of reasons unique to each of the Independant worlds. Perhaps the people of one world wanted to have a Free Market economy, or the people of another wanted to be ruled by the leader of a religious cult. The show doesn't need to be specific, because the Independance itself was so disjointed. You do bring up a very good point, though, in that we aren't aware of Mal's personal reasons for volunteering.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be more interesting. Mal being wrong would make for great stuff, but the way you said it seemed to credit Whedon with some creativity concerning the possibility of interesting character development, which I doubt he possessed.

I didn't like the Alliance because they're presented as an archetypal opposite to free thinking. Since I dig all of that freedom shit and am a card-carrying Libertarian, I'm naturally disposed to side with the Independance, but I'm sure that the Alliance wouldn't be any worse off a place to live, or be governed by.

I guess it's because they're brutal that people aren't supposed to like them, but then again that's the only defining aspect for why the Empire is evil in Star Wars. =P

Yet, if they were such a significant threat, then why were they hiding on Hoth, and when confronted directly were unable to defeat a single detachment of the Imperial Army? Simply because Lucas's narrative insists that the Alliance is a threat doesn't mean that what we see happen in the movie supports it.

Well, the only fleets we know of are the personal vanguards of Vader and Palpatine. Other fleets could simply be detachments, but you're right, we don't know enough to be specific.

I would still refer back to Tarkin's mention of the governors, however, since the Empire has absolute sovereignty over the Galaxy. Because it has absolute sovereignty, then every single inhabited world would be under the control of a Moff. Whether Moffs have administration over a sector of space or individual planets isn't specified, but even assuming it's the latter, that doesn't mean that individual Moffs can't band together to form self-serving alliances, again like the Chinese.


It just occurred to me, though. What ultimately made the Union right wasn't the opposition of slavery on behalf of the abolitionists. Lincoln himself admitted that it was impossible to determine whether or not God's favor would be for the North or the South, despite the fact that both invoked his name assuming they were right.

What made the Union right was in that the States were more powerful as a Federation than a Confederation, and it's along those same lines that the Independance could've been in the wrong during the war.

Your observation is quite correct. I was trying to make a point between logic, not a point between facts or evidence. I should've tried harder at coming up with a more topical combination than meerly putting Goodwin's Law into effect.

Well, without knowing what they were "meddling" with - who's to say? I'm sure a lot of Johnny Rebs thought the Yanks were "meddling".

Is there a statement in the show? I don't remember that point being given but it's been some time since I watched it. Is there someone who says theres various reasons to the war?

Maybe they were arguing over Great Taste and Less Filling! (My point being that we don't have *any* evidence to make the claim of why fighting broke out except for one side's bias. For all we know, Mal and Zoe are war criminals of some type - however implausable that may be)

I don't follow. First off, how can you mount a reasonable resistance if you're "disjointed"? And what made you believe they were "disjointed" in the first place? Because they lost?

I think Whedon and much of his staff are very talented people. I think they write good dialouge with interesting plot twists. However, I do think that Firefly is lesser than Buffy (but above Angel) in terms of interesting storytelling. Do I blame Whedon for things I disagree with? Of course - I already cited my complete and utter loathing for Buffy Seasons 6 and 7. I also don't care for Angel after the first season and Serenity is a big ol writing mess.

However, I place just as much blame on the fans. I'm tired of the internet telling me that Firefly is "important" and "revolutionary" when it's neither. I'm sure we'd be getting the same bullshit story if Buffy came out 5 years later, since 1996 was still a little early for the general public to be using the internet en masse.

Where do you get that from? Oh because all we ever see is war ships and special agents and stuff, is that it? Well, of course, I don't think any government worth it's salt is going to send tax collectors and file clerks to the front lines and capture smugglers.

Again, we're brought back to the idea that Mal is just plain biased. We're never given the Alliance's point of view - and while, yes, they're painted as being an oppresive ubergovernment, not all the systems resisted Alliance rule during the war.

By that line of logic, I can assume you have a major weapons cache in your house and you help run a large militia?

Well, Star Wars is even less subtle. All the fleet officers are british actors in vaugely facist uniforms. They might as well be wearing SS lapels.

However, Star Wars is also a Hero's Journey thing like Beowulf, while Firefly is more like Gettysburg.

Any number of reasons

1.) Any tactician will tell you that for something like the Rebellion to exist, there has to be other operating cells. That is to say - Hoth may be the largest base for the Alliance but it's not the only one, either. So, the Rebellion isn't in full force, so to speak.

2.) The Alliance hadn't been in Hoth very long. They're still having problems with closing the doors, Han and Luke are still placing markers, they're "having trouble adapting (the speeders) to the cold" and they run into previously unknown indigenous life when Luke is attacked by the Wampa.

3.) Star Destroyers aren't bitch ships. I won't go into detail because theres something like 10 "canon" sources for ship stats and they all contradict each other - but needless to say that a single Star Destroyer can easily blockade a planet and maybe even an entire system provided they have a good commanding officer.

I've never heard that spoken in the films or radio drama. If anything, thats an unreasonable assumption - wheres the Executor when Vader is chasing the Tantive IV?

I think Moffs actually get systems or even sectors. Remember that Tarkin says "Regional Governors" - well, whats a region exactly? Safe to assume it's less than a territory (Mid Rim, Outer Rim, etc) but almost surely more than a single planet.

Actually, this is a EU subplot that I kind of liked but once the Death Star is destroyed over Yavin, the Emperor was so angry he refused to put another Moff in charge of such a project - which is why you see Vader personally pursuing the Rebellion in ESB.

I'm sure that the Death Star was also inteded to keep Moffs from "self-serving alliances".

Ah, then you see my point. I'm sorry I'm round about - often enough, I find myself rereading previous posts and unable to follow the more minute parts of my logic. But I'm glad we had this discussion, none the less.

As am I, and while you've made several points which are possible for me to argue, I would like to point out a few things:

I'm not sure if you're just being off-topic, but with no Emperor and no Death Star how does that stop the Moffs in his absence?

Clearly, but then neither is the Empire. I'm not saying at all that Star Destroyers are bitch ships, in fact I believe it was mentioned somewhere (though not in the films) that it takes several systems to provide the logistics that support a single Star Destroyer.

Nonetheless, if Hoth is the Rebel's biggest base, and they are as much a significant threat to the Empire as independant Moffs would be to each other, why can't they meet the Imperials toe to toe? They have no heavy assault weapons, no large capital ships (at the time that we know of), and no sizeable army. Yes, they haven't had much time to prepare on Hoth, but then they should at least have something on-world that can rival the AT-STs, if they're that significant of a threat. The absence of any indication of a major military power indicates that the Rebels are still using hit and run guerilla tactics.

Then again, I suppose this is a case of the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence. Because we can't see them doesn't necessarily mean that the Rebels aren't capable of meeting the Imperials in the ways that I have described, though I'm fairly confident that the Rebels don't present the kind of threat you're implying because I recall there being at least a slight mention that the Rebels were throwing in everything they could spare at Endor, and that they were showing up in full force.

Then again, I suppose we don't know whether or not the Empire was there in full force, I can just highly doubt it. I also think that if Lucas wanted the Rebels to have all of those cool toys, then he would feature them. The Rebels aren't as alluring, after all, if they're no longer underdogs.

It's ironic, then, that in the end of the Hero's journey, he accomplishes nothing but personal growth. If it was truly a Beowulf tale, then Luke would have slayed the dragon, instead of Lando.

It's been a while since I've seen Firefly as well, so I guess the only concrete thing I have to base my view of the Alliance is Whedon's commentary on the Serenity DVD I bought around Christmas. I think in the show, the only indication of that we get was that the Alliance worlds were clean and cosmopolitan, while the Rim worlds were rugged and all that good jazz. It's a simple Black Cape plot device, but I guess it could all just be a bunch of hooey.

It doesn't, per se. But I somehow doubt that the Alliance would need to do all the work - hell, the Special Edition shows people celebrating on Coruscant for fuck's sake. (That still doesn't make any sense)

But what I'm saying is that I'm sure that "civilians" are rebelling against the Empire after the Battle Of Endor.

They don't have the man power to attack a major military industrial war machine? I mean, you have these ships that are about a mile and a half long (and are supposedly as dangerous to fight as they are to serve on - someone decided to make a stupid euphimism for the old WWII Liberty-class ships in EU tech books) and alone can bombard entire cities to rubble. Then you have a wing of starfighters which is, what, 80 in count?

This isn't to say that the Rebellion doesn't have warships but look at the majority of what they do have: Nebulon-Bs, some Mon Cal cruisers and some blockade runners. Thats small beans and they don't have the resources to restock readily - you cannot have an open rebellion against something as oppressive as a major industrial war machine without it being quashed completely. Another unoffical-but-cute story in EU involves the early years of Tarkin, who sullied a protest by ordering his shuttle land on the people in the picket line.

You contradict yourself with that last sentence. See, for them to exist like they have, they have to use guerilla tactics because they can't fight large anti-infantry weaponry like an AT-ST. Look at the ease in which the Empire takes Hoth - the Rebellion doesn't have the ability to retaliate against such a massive invasion force.

You're correct, basicly. The Rebellion probably would've lived on - but if they were defeated at Endor, it would've been a setback from which they likely would have never recovered from. Not just in terms of ships or manpower but pure talent. Between Ackbar, Solo, Calrissian and Leia being there - you have a huge peice of the Rebellion's figurehead. (I don't see Luke as being very important to the Rebellion - he's there more as a matter of chance. He's there more because it'll bring him to Vader, not so much him defeating the Empire)

Something thats completely failed in all of EU is that the Rebellion was suppose to have old, warry equiptment that was more or less discarded or stolen. Look at the lived in design of any of the ships - the Y-Wings are basicly old short-range bombers no one would want anymore. Writers seem to forget this stuff when they start involving things like Force Crystals or Superweapons.

The dragon was heritage - not the literal Death Star. You go to the castle to kill the king, not burn his tapestry. (I'm sure there would be something more to be said if they actually let Lando die in the Death Star as originally intended but who's to say?)

I haven't bothered with commentary to this point because I wanted to get into a discussion like this so I could make my points without a third party knowledge in my mind. Needless to say, if you have to explain something in the commentary, you probably failed somewhere in the narrative.

Very true. We're likely not to find out, either since the show was cut short.

My guess (I haven't watched any Lucas interviews or anything, as I'm not that interested in the Star Wars universe) is he decided he didn't want the only token black guy in the movie to bite it. That might have been a bit of a mockery or have a bit of cheesiness aspect to it. If Lando had been white, then sure, biting it probably wouldn't have been as big of a deal.

I don't see how race has a single goddamned thing to do with anything stated in this thread - or anything involving Star Wars ever.

That probably came out far more rude than I had intended. Race doesn't have anything directly to do with Star Wars, no, but it does have to to do with the casting and such outside of the universe itself.

The idea of The Allience isn't evil, the surface of The Allience isn't evil, but the inner-workings of it are. When any one group thinks that there way is the right way and the only way, and they'll do anything to make the world as they envision it... that's evil.

Like it said in the movie, people don't like to be meddled with, and that's exactly what The Allience is doing. They are also discriminating against anyone who isn't under Allience rule by calling them savages.

You have no facts to make that statement even remotely legit.

I think you totally missed the last page and a half discussion about the American Civil War where the Union did exactly that and inadvertantly ended slavery.

Or are you supporting slavery? Defend yourself - or are you a sadist?

I think you're taking this way too seriously, LeHah. It's a TV show, calm down.

The Alliance and the Union are two entirely different things, with only some similarities.

I conclude my argument by saying this "Teh Aliance is EVAL!!!111one" :p

I was having a very intelligent conversation with Brady until you came in here and threw shit all over my fucking walls. How about you get the fuck out instead?

Considering that Whedon said the show was written after he had read The Killer Angels and the various other unsubtle commonalities between the Reconstruction Era and Firefly - they're not two seperate things. One is a thinly veiled metaphor for the other.

Ooh, excuse me. Sorry, but you don't own this message board so stop being so arrogant.

The fuck you say. This is my fucking internet. Get the fuck out.

Yeah, you're the intelligent one. You're so scary hiding behing the ananomity of the Internet. Ooh, I can use curse words and act like I own the place. Everyone is going to think I'm so cool....

Please, get a life.

Ooooh, because taking quotes out of context on the "anonymous internet" makes you *such* a better person. For someone who tells me to not be such a tough guy - you sure are the fucking nigger pot in this conversation.

You hijacked this thread with your crap - I was having an excellent discussion with a better person than yourself. So how about you let the adults go back to talking? I already reported one of your shitty little posts anyway.

I'm reporting your post too, you're using foul language and making general insults. This is a message board, and if you want to talk to just one other person, go get yourself an IM client. Just because you can't handle differing opinions and a change of pace...

You *are* new here, aren't you? While you're at it - you should report me for making valid points against your shitty postings in this thread.

I know this one!! It wasn't built yet. The Executor was built between ANH and ESB at (I believe) Kuat Drive Yards. A sister ship, the Lusankya, was being built at the same time at Fondor and was later buried on Coruscant.

Actually I've been here for a while, but I re-registered. You have no ettiqute what so ever. Just because you don't like what someone has to say you feel a need to insult them. I don't care if you were having an "intelligent conversation" with someone else. As I recall this message board has 3,050 members, not two.

The first part is somewhat sensible - I know that Kuat was involved in the war effort. I don't remember if they were the ones who made the Star Destroyer but I'll check when I get home.

That second part is awful and stupid though.

Notice I didn't insult Brady or Majin. You know why? They don't post stupid. They don't act stupid - well, okay, Majin does sometimes but not since the board got rebooted.

Do not expect me to give you my respect for no reason. That has to be earned. If I don't like what you have to say - so the fuck what? Is your skin so thin? Why do you care? This is the internet and if you have such a gripe with people telling you to fuck off and die - you need to log off and get a life.

So you admit to threadjacking. Not only that - but acting like a fucking dumbass. In a court of law, most people would be smart enough to plead the fifth before saying something that stupid.

As I recall - I don't fucking care. I was having a conversation that ranged from American History to semantics in several entertainment mediums. Then you come in and say fucking nonsense about how you think this and this and how *I am wrong* without reading the rest of the thread. Get the fuck out.

INTERNET. SERIOUS BUSINESS.

*ahem* Spoilers Ahead

I'm mainly basing this off of Serenity, since I only caught like 2-3 episodes of Firefly when it was on Fox, but I'd say the Alliance is... well to make an analogy they are sort of like the Dark Jedi. While the Sith are probably evil to a degree, with thier total dedication to the 'dark side' of the force. The 'dark jedi' employ BOTH sides of the force in thier uses. The Alliance seems to use the good of thier technology and influence as a lawmaking body to improve human life in thier perspective, and they will go to decidedly morally questionable methods to do so.

The Military experiments on River (As seen in the opening of Serenity) seem to show that thier darker side is towards domination of the entire system, presumably under Good intentions, of 'Civillizing' the outer world 'cowboys'.

The situation with the Reavers probably showed best thier methods: They wanted to create peace, even using artificial forced means, but the unexpected death of almost all the population of Miranda, and insanity of the survivors (Reavers) stopped thier more forceful methods, and so they turned more towards a slow, steady pace, (much like how Palpatine slowly rose though the ranks of the Senate and Poltical Arenas to gain control of the empire, through legal means) of getting everyone in the stystem under thier control.

There's also the question of what the motives of those in charge actually are. They could be evil, under a guise of 'peace'. (Echoing the Emperor's stated intentions to Anakin in Ep. III) for control of the entire start system... or they could be good, using evil methods to get to thier goals.

That's how I see it anyway, but I need to go back and watch Firefly, because I probably funked up some stuff in what I said.

Well, there you go. The Military experiments on River. Does some skunk ops represent the entire Alliance? Probably not - much like how a fireteam of soldiers does not represent most people in the United States.

See, the problem is that we don't know *anything* about the Alliance. Fandom assumes far too much when we know all too little. It's easy to demonize them as some oppressive government - but how far does that go exactly? All we know is this - Mal and Zoe were on the losing side of a major war and the people they confront from the Alliance are military or of some type of defense service.

What if the show was shown from the perspective of the Alliance? Mal and Zoe would be terrorists or fugatives. Smugglers, to be sure. But obviously there is more to them than that - as we see in the series.

You lost a somewhat valid point in there somewhere.

Yes, the Alliance created Reavers. They did so by accident, mind you. It wasn't a grand evil experiment - the evil was that they tried to cover it up at all.

Your attempt to use Palpatine in your speech makes little or no sense. Can you be a bit more specific?

Again - assumption. You can't say they're evil OR good because we don't know shit about the Alliance. They have a big military force and they don't like Mal or Zoe and they want River back and... thats about it. Theres no political commentary, no mention of who's in charge of the Alliance, no mention of territories or regions. Is the Alliance communist? A Republic? We don't know.

No, you mostly made sense. Its just that everything in it has been covered already in this thread.

Well, it was Lira Wessex who designed it, but it was built by KDY. And yes, Lusakya being burried under Coruscant was a rather stupid plot device. Cool ship though.

Well, lets keep this in mind. Though I like the explaination that the Executor is still being constructed - it doesn't make sense.

On one hand, we don't know about the Executor until ESB. So it *could* exist during ANH because theres no statement in the film or radio drama that the ship is still under construction.

On the other hand, if you want to add Expanded Universe to the arguement, the Al Williamson comic strip features the Executor immedeately after the Battle Of Yavin.

So which is it? The fact that the movie's "lack of evidence" takes precident over any EU, so we should err on the side of caution.

The Executor's situation in A New Hope could theoretically be both, actually. While Executor could have been for all intents and purposes complete at the time of the Battle of Yavin, there could have also still been minor work still to be done, undergoing builders' trials and such, and the ship would still be in KDY's hands. However, when the Rebels destroyed the Death Star, the Empire could have then brought that to an end and pressed into service immediately to help make up for the lost firepower the Death Star represented. (A historical example would be the Royal Navy pressing HMS Prince of Wales into service to face Bismarck.)

This suffers from the same lack of evidence that other possibilities suffer, but it's as plausible as they are.

Also, Cyantre, I read your reports, and read the thread and the path it took after you posted in it. You say LeHah was "harassing" you. Judging by your posts, you disrupted an intelligent conversation with stupidity (after not reading the thread, apparently) and got LeHah mad at you for it.

What the fuck is this supposed to be? You expect people who have been having an intelligent conversation to appreciate your input, or even want you around, after you interject with something like that? You provoked LeHah with your own stupidity. Don't come crying to us to get us to clean up messes you made yourself.

Indeed. Perhaps this needs to be explained to me, because the idea that a ship which could field as much power as an entire squadron of Star Destroyers would be rendered useless is Hella stupid.


Also, to Cyantre, read threads before you post in them. I know big words may make brain hurting, but there's something called context that threads follow along paths of conversation. The forums aren't just a medium for your stupid opinions, they're a vehicle for conversation.

It wasn't rendered useless. It was used as a high security prison and an emergency escape vehicle for the Emperor.

Whenever I need to escape, I go to a prison too!

"This battle is going awful! How are we going to escape?"
"I know! Lets get into our 12 mile long ship thats been converted into a prison and fly off into space!"

WHAT. WHAT. WHAT.

Nevermind, either, that a vessel of that size requires an immense support structure. When your last hope of escape could possibly be scrapped within a week, what's the point of drawing so much attention to oneself?

Also the prisoners.

Aside from the fact that the gravity of the planet probably wouldn't allow the ship to take off.

And that how the FUCK would you manuever a 12 mile ship through an entire planet that makes the set of Blade Runner look like the suburbs?

It was mounted on repulsorlift sleds. And who said anything about manuevering? When it took off, it took a load of Coruscant with it. Since when did anyone know Palpatine to be concerned with collateral damage?

Which doesn't change the fact that the idea of burying a 12-mile long battleship under a city to serve as a prison is ridiculous for a great many reasons.

Palpatine forced the Rendar Shipping Company to close and sell all it's assets after one of it's pilots smashed into Imperial Center.

I'm not even going to bother with you LeHah. I'm just going to report every message that I feel merits being reported. The topic was getting back to normal, but you had to go back and troll some more.

To Lord Styphon: Way to take things out of context. I was being attacked for not agreeing with LeHah's opinion. So in reponse I tried to post something a little on the lighter side to make things a little less tense. After all, it's just a TV show and the emotion at the end of the sentence indicated humor. Obviously it's something many of you are without.

What you're going to do is stop abusing the Report function to in an effort to get us to clean up a mess you made.

You've had two moderators tell you that you were at fault for the grief you caught because you came into this thread acting like a fuckstick. Now be a good little boy, just leave, and stop wasting everyone's time with your whining. Particularly Staff's.

So being called a "fucking nigger pot" isn't harrassment? I don't care if you're an administrator or not. I did nothing wrong. I stayed on topic, but LeHah felt the need to attack my opinion and then insulted me repeatidly.

You butted into a discussion with inane prattle, then proceeded to act like an idiot. Being called a "fucking nigger pot" only came into play after it had started. You say you stayed on topic, but you feel the need to keep coming back, telling LeHah to go fuck himself and that you're reporting his posts. That's not really staying on topic.

Now, for the last time, you're started this shitfest by not reading the thread and the discussion that had been going on before. It's your fault. Now shut the fuck up and leave this thread. I don't want to see another word out of you here.

If you don't want to, it's been a while since I've banned someone for derailing a thread, like you've been doing.

I didn't say a single curse word to LeHah. I stayed as respectful as possible in the midst of the constant attacks. LeHah was the one who provoked additional response by myself, and still continued to attack me AFTER the topic did into further discussion by other users.

You're still derailing the thread with your whining. And after I said to leave the thread, too.

Now stop.

Who the hell are you? I don't care if you're an administrator or not. Are you blind? LeHah was the one who attacked me personally, and made several comments that were rude and uncalled for. The comments were not only insulting to me, but insulting to a large group of people as well. For someone who was previously arguing about how The Alliance is similar to the American Civil War, and then to call me a "fucking nigger pot"... Well come on now. LeHah continued to insults me and not even the slightest action has been taken. That's absurd.

The Alliance is evil. "What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done." - The Operative

Styphon, as the creator of this thread, would it be too much to ask you to ban Cyantre for a day or two, so he has a chance to calm down?

EDIT; Thank you.

Looks like Styphon gave me my birthday present a couple days early. Thanks.

No, but when the military force of a country/empire grows large enough, it starts to enforce other doctrines and acts as a symbol of that nation/empire's power and dominance. They are in part a way to let people know that they can fight you with a lot of force if necessary. They are, for lack of a better term, an Icon.

Compare the United States' Military Force in Iraq. Yes we are technically a democracy and not in a state of war, but our large force (Which I think is only outnumbered by the Chinese, correct me if I'm wrong) also acts as a way for the US to enforce thier foreign policy, in perspectives some would consider bad, while others would view it as good.

Every government in the world is guility of evil then. We all have our little secrets, from a single person to an entire government. Of course bad shit is going be covered up. It would be bad PR :D

I was using Star Wars, and Palpatene in particular for an analogy. Palpatine came to power legally and enacted all sorts of restrictions and new laws in the name of ensuring peace in the galaxy, mostly from the 'betrayal' of the Jedi, and to take back the breakaway 'Confederate Star Systems'.

On the flip side, The Alliance created the reavers and as a side-effect boosted thier military force for 'protection' from them, and to hopefully bring back the outsiders into 'civilization'.

The main difference is that we see that Palpatine was intentional in creating the clones and instigating the huge Clone War for his own gain, while the Reaver creation was an accident.

However in both situations a larger military force was the outcome.

Political Commentary... actually I think there is, but its not outright given to the viewer... its somewhat implied. Consider the fact that they were working on River at all. This shows that in at least some way, the Alliance has uses for domination and using psychic agents to win against thier enemies, either Browncoats or Reavers. Obviously they want her back to continue whatever operations they were doing before.

I guess that's my fault for entring the thread late =\

--Edit--
I just thought of something, it might have been brought up... but uh... the "Hands of Blue" who are chasing River might be agents of a controlling force that might be in top positions of authority in the Alliance.

When the military grows large enough to control the government, there is no more government to speak of. That is not the case with the Alliance as theres obviously a beaureaucratic part to it.

Congrats on making the worst generalization possible. The US Military Force has *nothing* to do with Iraq's situation. The Bush Administration are the ones that had the military deployed; otherwise you'd have another scenario like when Douglas MacArthur was removed from his position following his crossing the 38th parallel.

The President is in charge of the military, despite what the pressing droves of college students would lead one to believe.

Making snide remarks to undermine my point only make you look like an ass. If Bill Clinton came out to say he nailed some mildly attractive secretary or Nixon came out to say that he was a paranoid jerk - these moments would be much smaller, less known incidents in their otherwise respectable political careers. The fact that you can make sweeping, overt gestures about people everywhere and the history of not just our government but *every* government is about as stupid as it is vauge.

Well, keep in mind we're seeing this from beyond the fourth wall. *We* know that Palpatine is behind the CIS movement but no one else really does even by Episode III where most people are just really suspicious or very much dead.

What powers did Palpatine enact? We cannot say if his declairing the formation of the Galactic Empire anything more than grandstanding because we don't know what laws were effected when the Clone Wars started. We know *nothing* about the political situation in Star Wars aside from the fact that it's VERY thinly veiled analogy of the Bush Administration come Episode III. (Obi-Wan's bitching about how he serves democracy is just horribly silly given how long the galaxy has been at war by Episode III and how Kenobi has been directly serving the orders of the Supreme Chancellor for a number of years by now)

Thats speculation - and completely illogical at that. The lengths that you are reaching would be humorous in another situation. No military would create an enemy which they could not control - The Reavers are shown as insane people wearing skins of their victims. Add to this the fact that

1.) Reavers herald from a planet in which it was a colony, not a military station. The hologram we see on the station pretty much tells us outright that its an accident. In fact, 1 in 10 people were turned into Reavers - thats a minority of the people affected. It was obviously an accident and not an orchestrated event.

2.) The Alliance had just won a war a number of years back. I doubt they'd need another fight breaking out given that they were fighting for the stability of their borders.

You don't know anything about the Alliance's military force aside from *them having one*. There is no statement about a buildup of any military measure before, during or after the war with the Seperatists in Firefly. Stop saying things that have not happened.


You cannot have political commentary in Firefly for two reasons

1.) It's "The American Civil War In Space". Joss Whedon all but says it repeatedly in the documentaries in the Firefly set. All these "political commentaries" were solved back when your great-great-great-grandfather was in diapers.

2.) You cannot have apt political commantary without the politics. It's never stated what form of government it is outside of an Anglo-Asian alliance. Anything beyond that is sterile conjecture at best.

Yeah, I pay my soldiers to die, not to win!

River is a tricky topic. We're told she's an experiement - but not much else. She's psychic somehow, an amazing fighter, insane and has this secret locked in her head. In terms of logic, that really doesn't add up at all - in terms of story, it's cheap crapola.

Well, if someone were to break into your house and steal some of your shit, wouldn't you want it back? The Alliance invested time and money and people into the project that River was a part of. Why shouldn't they go get her back? Because she's with the good guys? Thats illogical bullshit.

They also might have blue hands because they enjoy sitting on them a lot. Whats your point? You have nothing to support that idea aside from the idea it's self. It's rubbish.

I was just saying that the Military seemed to embody a sort of 'image' for part of the Alliance. When I said enforce other doctrines I meant that through the subversive tactics of foreign policy, they would expand the Government's 'influence' and Sphere of Cultral domination.


Oh? Seems to be that the US Military's Forces, along with other colalition armies went into Iraq and removed a leader from power and set up a new government. The protection of the people as well as the elimination of the old regime's forces has been shown to be at least in part the Military's job, as a protection 'service' (For lack of a better word). If you're referring to the possible 'civil war' that has been predicted very recently, then you're correct.

Well of course. Any President and thier administration are the ones who deploy the military.

.
Ahh yes, that was the lone actions of a General who stepped beyond his bounds, I see what you're saying.

You seem to have missed what I said, I'll reiterate:

You said: "the evil was that they tried to cover it up at all."
I replied: "Every government in the world is guility of evil then." I said that because every government has covered up stuff at one time or another, so since you said that it was evil of them to cover it up, I was saying that every government in the world could also be considered evil in that line of reasoning. I did not intend it to be a snide remark, moreso it was a response, or quip I guess *Shrug*

Obviously I can't provide proof that every government has covered up things, but it seemed better to say that, versus "most governments", where someone would then say "Oh I see, so there are perfect governments out there huh? NOT!" or something like that. I was trying to avoid that argument.

True. I concede then.

This is a stretch, but Order 66 could be considered a war power :p

On a more serious note, as you said we can only conjecture from dialouge (Specifically when Pademe mentioned more 'sweeping changes' or 'sweeping war-time powers' something to that effect) what he did exactly, so I have no answer for you right now.

True. However we may learn more in the upcoming TV Series, which is set between Episode III and IV.

Ahhh... see that's what I was NOT inferring:

[quote = DN]
The main difference is that we see that Palpatine was intentional in creating the clones and instigating the huge Clone War for his own gain, while the Reaver creation was an accident.

However in both situations a larger military force was the outcome.[/quote]
I even said myself that the Reaver 'creation' was an accident.

However, I found the spot that probably caused the confusion:
.
I guess I should have said "created the reavers on accident'". The boosted military force was a guess on my part, so you're correct on that.

As I just said, It was a guess/assumption on my part, so you win on that.

Well I was talking about how the Experiments on River reflect a 'darker' policy, and yes the American Civil War is obvious. The Alliance are the Northern States and the Browncoats are the defeated Confederacy, yep.

That's not a good economic strategy :edgartpg:

I think the reason why it doesn't add up logically is that we're missing a vital piece of the story that might have been planned to be revealed later on. She seems to be central to the Alliance's more dubious endevours and may prove to play a large role should they ever continue on with the story.

I retract what I said. Apparently in one of the Comics (which are as Canon as the show and movie) they got killed off.

Because any normal government isn't going to send clowns, tax collectors and kewpie dolls to patrol their borders.

...Under orders from their respective government officals. The military didn't act on it's own accord, they were given orders.

I don't see how acknowledging occupation does anything for this discussion.

Then stop saying the military. There is *nothing* to support the idea that the Alliance is a purely militant body - *you're* just assuming it because thats all you see.

I'm not the one arguging if it was "Evil" - you were. I was stating that it's the government's perogative to cover things up. Now, there are many things that the government needs to keep secret as a matter of military and worldwide stability. However, blowjobs and lists of potential enemies is not one of them.

Then you should not have spoken.

I would've hoped that by reading the rest of this thread - you'd have known no one here that isn't banned would've replied in that manner.

Thats a vauge but potentially good point. It was an order, more than a "war power", I'd say - because the order enacted a military movement of assassination. A "war power" would be something more like a proposal in a declared act like the Patriot Act, which allows us to detain "parties of interest" for indefinite amounts of time.

And I hope you never do. The point of Star Wars is Joesph Campbell, not Alan Greenspan.

Until then though - we don't know.

Well, thats nothing new. Theres horrible experiments done by every government, I'm sure - look at "Gulf War Syndrome".

Ehhhhhhhhh. Right and wrong.

Yes, we're pissing parts - but then Joss Whedon shouldn't made it a point to shove 5 seasons worth of plot points into 2 hours time.

I'm just going out on a limb here - but why does everyone say that River Tam is so important to the Alliance's endeavors? While I understand they'd want their investment back, a lot of people think that the Alliance would fall apart without one waif-thin girl.