| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:50 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bren wrote: | | Drop pods is very Heinlein Starship Troopers where they are used for planetary assault. Star Wars seems to use assault shuttles rather than drop pods. |
Drop pods are already a thing, complete with stats in Rules of Engagement, and brief descriptions of some of their uses in the Imperial Sourcebook. They're basically a life pod modified to hold a squad of troops.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Naaman wrote: | | Concerning Rogue 1, the grey area saturating the movie is actually, IMO, it's most glaring problem. It left a bad taste in my mouth, and diminished the generally pleasent flavor of Star Wars in general. It just felt like it didn't fit thematically, even if it fit logically. |
Interesting. I liked Rogue 1 a lot. I found the change refreshing and it had a similar theme and tone to many of the WWII films that I've seen. Rogue I has some similarity in tone to the 1942 film, Commandos Strike At Dawn.
| Quote: | As for quantity producing higher quality troops, there is some logic there. But I tend to think that the empire focuses on mass production rather than on quality production. It seems plausible that the best, say, 1000 troops in the Alliance could be better than the best 1000 troops in the empire, but the empire might have another 1,000,000 super elite troops while the Rebels have, say, 100,000.
Does that make sense? |
I agree the Imperial focus is standardization and mass production. But we know they have elite troops. Creating them was Crix Madine's job before he defected to the Alliance. They have a much larger pool of candidates and far more resources for training than does the Alliance. Absent some drawback to the Empire or some advantage to the Rebels, it just doesn't seem reasonable that the Rebels would be able to produce super elite soldiers that the Empire couldn't match or exceed.
Now when I say that, I don't see PCs factoring into the above numbers. PCs will (eventually, probably) be superior to the best either Military can produce. Setting PCs aside though, there would need to be some compelling reasons why the much smaller, much poorer Alliance could field better super elite troops.
Now we could decide for reasons of play style or genre that we want quality on the Alliance side and quantity on the Imperial side. But that is a metagame, not an in-universe rationale.
One possible in-universe rationale. If the Alliance super elites are non-humans from species with higher species maximums and/or higher attribute totals than humans, that could be one reason. Coynites in Elrood sector, for example, have both higher maximums in STR and DEX and higher attribute totals than do humans so a Coynite would make a plausible candidate for a super elite soldier, if one could be persuaded to join the Alliance. (According to the Planet's Collection, Coyn was not in Rebellion and was legally pro-Imperial.)
What other in-universe reasons do you see for the Rebels having the best of the best.
| Quote: | | EDIT: the source for my 19-year old average Marine is Dick Couch, author of Chosen Soldier, wherein he compares the average age of a green beret at 32 against "the entire Marine Corps" at 19. It's possible that his number reflects some specific demographic within the Marine Corps (such as infantry, maybe), rather than the entire Corps. |
It seems likely that the demographic was Marine recruits. It's the only way that makes sense statistically. While a recruit can join at age 17 (with permission of a parent or guardian) most Marines who sign up are going to be at least 18 and (unless they wash out) they are going to be 20+ half way through their first tour. It's true that the Marines are younger, on average, than the other service branches. |
I suppose one way to justify the rebels having a few soldiers that outclass the empire's best could be motivation.
In the miliitary, the single most desireable attribute is guts (willpower, determination, commitment, etc.). This is especially true in spec ops selection courses. Next most important is intelligence (problem solving ability, mostly) along with the ability to leverage that intelligence to the advantange of a team (or, the ability to influence--not coerce--others to cooperate). Trainability/humility are also highly valued, (humility is not opposed to confidence, but rather arrogance; confidence is absolutely necessary; arrogance is essentially a disqualifier).
I'd estimate that these attributes may be more common in the Alliance than in the Empire, but.... that's just my opinion based on how I interpret imperial military social norms.
I guess we could also just assert that those 1000 or 100 or 10 ultimate best super soldiers are PCs, prior PCs or the mentors of PCs (such as the Yodas, Palpatines, and Kenobis of their particular stories).
RE: the Marine Corps, I shared that statistic with a coworker of mine who was a former Marine Staff Sergeant in the intelligence branch (very smart guy, well versed in academic concepts such as statistical analysis) and he said it sounded "accurate." There is no doubt in my mind that when I said "entire Corps" he knew the implications. It's anecdotal (and already shown to be incorrect by an official source), but it contributes to my willingness to believe that many Marines don't stay in long enough to "even out" the average age with other services. That is, it could mean that the vast majority of Marines do 3 or so years and get out, making room for more 17-19-year olds. Anyway, I suppose its moot at this point. But I included just in case you cared.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | I don't see how you get that interpretation from what I wrote. I specifically mentioned revolutionaries and Loyalists - the two sides that I was comparing. To me, revolutionaries and Loyalists implies the American Revolution not the wars in 20th century Vietnam or 21st century Afghanistan. |
Naaman had just pointed out that the Alliance wasn't the Taliban or the Vietnam because they didn't deliberately commit atrocities, so I offered up the American Revolution as perhaps more to his liking. You then implied that atrocities were committed by both sides in the American revolution, too (I'm not aware of any specific incidents, but it wouldn't surprise me if something did happen). It seemed a pretty clear line to me. |
OK. So you missed my point the first time around.
My point was and is that while in a space opera game like Star Wars having a galactic Civil War with revolutionaries who have no shades of gray is fine and can be fun, in the real world wars always have some shades of gray and that goes double for civil wars and revolutions. So while the Colonial forces under Washington are several steps above using child bombers against civilians as a tactic, Naaman wants even better behavior for the Rebels in his Star Wars.
As far as atrocities in the American Revolution, the Boston Globe had an article discussing a history book on the topic. (I haven't read the book.)
| Quote: | | The Lords of the Expanse boxed set includes a local anti-Imperial resistance group that are true terrorists, and not affiliated with the Alliance. |
True. And there are also individual characters. There's a cheerful old grandma who leads a Rebel unit on Derilyn and who cheerfully offers poisoned tea to Imperials. She comes with a Dark Side Point. Wanted By Cracken included a few bad pennies. I think some of them were affiliated with the Alliance at one time, but either broke away or were disavowed. I also have a vague recollection of some Adventure where the PCs are supposed to stop some Rebel unit that is going (has gone, is about to go?) too far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Drop pods are already a thing, complete with stats in Rules of Engagement, and brief descriptions of some of their uses in the Imperial Sourcebook. They're basically a life pod modified to hold a squad of troops. |
My bad. I was thinking of the single person pods used in Starship Troopers. I forgot about WEG's multi person drop pods. While I have Rules of Engagement, I never paid all that much attention to it. I think I only ever ran one adventure that was similar to the WWII Commando missions that Rules of Engagement seems designed to emulate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose one way to justify the rebels having a few soldiers that outclass the empire's best could be motivation.[/quote]The problem is the Empire's overwhelming numbers. Added to that, we know that some Imperials are highly motivated. For example, Stormtroopers are supposed to be fanatically loyal (at least in the original trilogies and according to WEG) so they must be motivated. The Imperials don't need many of their troops to be highly motivated. The old Green Beret song talks says, "100 men will test today, but only 3 win the Green Beret." The Imperials could test 1,000,000 to get their 3 and they'd still outnumber Alliance Spec Forces.
| Quote: | | I'd estimate that these attributes may be more common in the Alliance than in the Empire, but.... that's just my opinion based on how I interpret imperial military social norms. |
I think that without a doubt the combination is more common, on average, in the Rebel forces. But the Imperials don't need their average to be as high, because they have such an enormous pool of potential talent.
But maybe a combination of attributes, selection tendencies, and prior Imperial training and indoctrination could be used to explain a significant Rebel advantage.
Determination and Commitment - The average Rebel is going to exceed the average Imperial here. For many Imperials commitment is based on indoctrination and/or fear. So over time, Imperials of good heart or with a conscience will have decreasing levels of commitment (and may defect). The less ethical are likely to also see an erosion of commitment or a shift of their determination towards self-interest rather than the interests of the group or community. But some Imperials will have high levels here. Examples: most stormtroopers, some TIE pilots.
Intelligence - I think this is an area where the Empire's brutal and repressive regime is going to select against high levels here for the rank and file. And I think those who have high levels are likely to use their Intelligence and Influence to further their own career, power, and promotion even at the expense of winning the Civil War or sparing their own casualties.
Trainability/humility - I think Imperial practice and training are not well designed to foster confidence WITH humility. I see their training as fostering arrogance and a false sense of superiority (based on indoctrination and propaganda) rather than confidence with humility.
Trust - you didn't mention this, but I think one big advantage for the Rebels is that they all share the same long term goal - defeating the Empire. This means you can trust that the being next to you isn't out to stab you in the back so they can step over your body to their next promotion. I think this means that even if, on scandocs, the Imperial Special Forces are better trained and equipped than their Alliance counterparts, elite Imps always need to spend some energy and attention to watching their own back. And elite Imps will have seen examples that demonstrate that the Imperial High Command does not value them individually and does not share the same long term goals. ("Increase my own personal power and position" just can't be a long term goal that most Imperials can share.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | RE: the Marine Corps, I shared that statistic with a coworker of mine who was a former Marine Staff Sergeant in the intelligence branch (very smart guy, well versed in academic concepts such as statistical analysis) and he said it sounded "accurate." There is no doubt in my mind that when I said "entire Corps" he knew the implications. |
That’s so odd. An average age of 19 is so obviously wrong because it’s mathematically impossible when the minimum is possible enlistment age is 17, (most are probably older), and the term of enlistment is a minimum of 4 active years. Most be some confusion about the terms, e.g. "all Marines" vs. "all recruits who finish their training."
Marines definitely are younger (on average) than the big three service branches though. Here’s some date from the Corps.
2016 Demographic Booklet
Some 2017 Data
2017 Demographic Booklet (couldn't find a way to link it)
https://www.usmc-mccs.org/mccs/assets/File/2017%20Demographics%20Booklet%20Jun(1).pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 12, 2019 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quality of troops.
The rebel "recruit" is on general much better than his imperial counterpart.
this is mostly due to the rebel recruit is often a person with previous military training, be this in a militia or the empire and the like.
As to a Pipeline with an organized academy for rebel troops then they fall short even here, and while there is some, I would put this very similar if not indentical to imperial training.
Crix Madine, was one of the Imperial that helped found and establish the stormcommados, and he is the chief of rebel special doeces, etc.
to me this makes the stormcommados and rebel spec forces similar, maybe even to a twin level.
However there is nothing that prevents the rebels from having an elite among these, trained to a higher standard.
Imperial Royal Guards, according to fluff, they are almost super human in their fighting abilities, it doesn't make them as versitile as spcial ops, but it will dictate a level not far from what is expected of special forces.
I will not get into a black vs while view, but to me star WARS means war and this means a very thick grey mud, with neither side being 100%
if we look to rebel pilots, many very very many are ex imperials, defectors make up a very large group of rebels.
Now when the the rebels becomes the new republic, then we will begin to scale up things, and model larger militaries and the like, but at least for the first decade after endor, the rebels will be insurgents united, and semi organized, vs a professional but severly splintered empire.
So with Imperial defectos making up a large part of the rebels, then what ever special forces not organized in the naturally very small regular "army" would be small individual cells, like the crew of the ghost, they are a lasat, a mando, 2 jedi and a pilot and droid.........etc.
the rebels alliance prior to transition to the new republic are not a united and highly organized and large military forces, it is at various times a fragmented loose knit connection of anit imperials, and later a close to full "faction" with a fully functioneing government, production and politics and the like....but they were never fully organized.
I would for that reason actually use the empire as the military "norm" and for special forces templates, for the rebels, though naturally to distance themselves from the imperial doctrines, use diffent names.
so maybe look to and model the forces on the stormcommandos, here we can call the scouts pathfinders, wilderness fighter etc.. and the like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | OK. So you missed my point the first time around.
My point was and is that while in a space opera game like Star Wars having a galactic Civil War with revolutionaries who have no shades of gray is fine and can be fun, in the real world wars always have some shades of gray and that goes double for civil wars and revolutions. So while the Colonial forces under Washington are several steps above using child bombers against civilians as a tactic, Naaman wants even better behavior for the Rebels in his Star Wars. |
I don't see how you reached that conclusion. I expect Naaman is enough of a realist to know that, in the event of a galaxy-wide rebellion, there are going to be instances where the Rebels get their hands dirty. But that's not the same thing as deliberately diving into the mud and rolling around in it, which is essentially what the Viet Cong did, and what the Taliban are doing. I brought up the American Revolution as an example of a "more honorable" sort of revolution.
To which you then replied that both sides of the American Revolution probably committed atrocities, too, essentially equating the Continental Army with the Taliban and VC, and leaving out the nuance of atrocity by accident or incidence versus atrocity by deliberate policy.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I don't see how you reached that conclusion. |
Because you have admitted that you didn't understand my point. A point which was not addressed to you, but to Naaman. And even after I've twice explained my point and the context you insistent on claiming that I intended and said something in response to you which I neither said nor intended. I don't know what else I can possibly say to clarify the matter any further. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | Quality of troops.
The rebel "recruit" is on general much better than his imperial counterpart.
this is mostly due to the rebel recruit is often a person with previous military training, be this in a militia or the empire and the like. |
True. Some Rebel recruits will have previous training or experience and of course some won't. Relatively few Imperial enlisted recruits will have prior training. So Rebel recruits probably do have, on average, more previous military training than do Imperial recruits. But we aren't comparing Rebel recruits to Imperial recruits. We are comparing Rebel Spec Forces to Imperial military spec forces. Even Rebels who are deserters from Imperial Spec Forces units, won't have more training than their peers who remain in service to the Empire.
| Quote: | | I will not get into a black vs while view, but to me star WARS means war and this means a very thick grey mud, with neither side being 100% |
I think that's a perfectly acceptable way to play. As is a simpler black & white moral dichotomy. I prefer to have some gray in the mix, but with few exceptions*, I want to see PCs who are (and act like) the good guys. I'm uninterested in a game where the PCs are the bad guys. I'm OK if they have done bad things in their past and are now trying to redeem themselves or at least they are unwilling to ever do that again.
| Quote: | | if we look to rebel pilots, many very very many are ex imperials, defectors make up a very large group of rebels. |
Well it is easier to defect if you can fly away in a starship. 
* My wife has a smuggler PC who is a lot like Han Solo at the beginning of A New Hope, minus the heart of gold. While there are things she won't do (no transporting slaves), she is ruthlessly mercenary. She has rescued prisoners from the Empire and done a couple of missions for the Alliance, but she always insists on being paid. Currently she is working as a smuggler for a transport company that is secretly controlled by Black Sun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1829
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Mamatried wrote: | Quality of troops.
The rebel "recruit" is on general much better than his imperial counterpart.
this is mostly due to the rebel recruit is often a person with previous military training, be this in a militia or the empire and the like. |
True. Some Rebel recruits will have previous training or experience and of course some won't. Relatively few Imperial enlisted recruits will have prior training. So Rebel recruits probably do have, on average, more previous military training than do Imperial recruits. But we aren't comparing Rebel recruits to Imperial recruits. We are comparing Rebel Spec Forces to Imperial military spec forces. Even Rebels who are deserters from Imperial Spec Forces units, won't have more training than their peers who remain in service to the Empire.
| Quote: | | I will not get into a black vs while view, but to me star WARS means war and this means a very thick grey mud, with neither side being 100% |
I think that's a perfectly acceptable way to play. As is a simpler black & white moral dichotomy. I prefer to have some gray in the mix, but with few exceptions*, I want to see PCs who are (and act like) the good guys. I'm uninterested in a game where the PCs are the bad guys. I'm OK if they have done bad things in their past and are now trying to redeem themselves or at least they are unwilling to ever do that again.
| Quote: | | if we look to rebel pilots, many very very many are ex imperials, defectors make up a very large group of rebels. |
Well it is easier to defect if you can fly away in a starship.
* My wife has a smuggler PC who is a lot like Han Solo at the beginning of A New Hope, minus the heart of gold. While there are things she won't do (no transporting slaves), she is ruthlessly mercenary. She has rescued prisoners from the Empire and done a couple of missions for the Alliance, but she always insists on being paid. Currently she is working as a smuggler for a transport company that is secretly controlled by Black Sun. |
Crix madine was accoriding to all the legends and old canon the founder and "designer" of Republic Special Forces/Rebel Special forces.
He was aloso one of the founding fathers of the imperial Stormcommandoes and a highly trained commando commander before he defected, and he defected around the battle of Yavin also according to the old canon.
With the rebel/republic Special Forces then "based on" the storm commandos I would argue them close to identical in capablities, while their organizational structure my differ.
this is the same as on earth, all special forces "trained and founded" by the British SAS will be similar, and close to identical in capabilites, as both will evolve.
this will be the same for many easter european special forces units, based on the then soviet spetznaz.
And then we can say the same for US "trained and founded" forces.
Now as to star wars we have to consider that the imperial military is huge, much bigger than the rebel alliance.
As such it can be reasonable to argue there will many differnt special forces units, not just the storm commandos.
becuse the main contributor to the rebel special forces program is an ex storm commando it can be reasonable to argue the similarity here.
while these will due to the smaller size of the overall military be the main bulk of republic/rebel special forces, there can and most likely will be others as well, though on a far lesser scale.
so whith madine being the "founder" of both the storm commandos and the rbel special forces, I can not see how they can be radically diffent.
so to me I would use these as the bulk of the special forces, and then as it makes sense add on other spcialized units that will fall under the spcial forces umbrella |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't disagree, however, there are a few things to consider.
In the military, there is a saying that to uninitiated ears would seem to be a cliche due to the frequncy of its use as an answer to tactical questions. That phrase is, "mission dictates."
The idea is that the element performing the operation cannot answer a particular question until "the mission" reveals the context in which that question will be relevant.
For example: "will we be using night vision on this mission?"
The answer depends on whether the mission:
-is at night or in darkness.
-even if at night, what will the lighting be like?
-how likely can the enemy exploit the night vision?
-how much can the team control the lighting (can they cut power at the objective, for example)?
This works in reverse, too. The training a particular element receives depends on its stated mission.
I read an article this week wherein some army guys were explaining the difference between navy SEALs and army SF/Rangers.
Early in the recent conflict, the SEALs were clueless about things like Op Orders (constructing a mission and relating it up and down the chain of command) and even machine guns (as opposed to just automatic rifles). The army had to train the SEALs on these things in order to help them be able to accomish their mission (that is, the overall mission in the war, not just individual ops).
In this case, "mission dictates" means that the training received by navy SEALs was given because their mission (that is, their function in the military) was changing.
This may or may not apply in the SWU, but I'll assume it does for many reasons; not the least of which are the authors' attempts at portraying the SW military as having similar characteristics of real life militaries.
Having said all that, I can see a potential argument for why Rebel SpecForces could have a different skill set than Imperial storm commandos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | I don't see how you reached that conclusion. |
Because you have admitted that you didn't understand my point. A point which was not addressed to you, but to Naaman. And even after I've twice explained my point and the context you insistent on claiming that I intended and said something in response to you which I neither said nor intended. I don't know what else I can possibly say to clarify the matter any further. |
If your point was directed at Naaman, why were you replying directly to me?
| Bren wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | How about the American Revolution? The Continental Army fought around and among the common citizenry of the Colonies, against a superior enemy, and yet they still ultimately won without resorting to atrocities. |
Civil wars (and revolutions are a civil war) are always messy. Victors tend to write history. I think it is reasonable to assume that not everyone on the revolutionary side (or the Loyalist side for that matter) had clean hands. But the original Star Wars trilogy is clearly space opera with a pretty black and white morality and it fits better with the view of the American Revolution that many of us here in America learned in elementary school. |
That’s what started this whole sidebar. You specifically quoted me, but I’m somehow supposed to read your mind and know you weren’t actually talking to me? 
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mamatried wrote: | | With the rebel/republic Special Forces then "based on" the storm commandos I would argue them close to identical in capabilities, while their organizational structure my differ. |
I think there are two significant differences in the two forces that would impact how they function and thus should effect how they are trained.
1. Rebel special forces will be species heterogeneous where the Storm Commandos are not.
2. I don't see the Rebel's using storm commando style heavy armor. Which I would think have a significant effect on how those forces operate compared to Imperial special troops.
I'm not aware that there are anything like that degree of difference between real world special forces personnel or equipment, so I think it's not always appropriate to draw on the real world for a model for Star Wars. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2019 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | You specifically quoted me. |
Yes, my mistake. I responded to your comment on the American Revolution that was addressed to Naaman and confused who was who. However, to put that in context you said, to Naaman:
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | The Alliance isn’t the US Armed Forces; it’s the Viet Cong or the Taliban. |
Naaman disagreed at some length, essentially saying that no the Alliance was not the Taliban. That the Rebels were the good guys who, like the US Army, were more morally restrained in their tactics than their opponents. And that the Empire were the bad guys who, like the Taliban et all, were far more unrestrained in their tactics and careless of, or even wanted to cause, significant collateral damage and civilian/noncombatant casualties.
You then said, OK maybe the Rebels aren't like the Taliban, they are like the American Revolutionaries. To which I commented that the forces on both sides in the American Revolution did not meet Naaman's good guy criteria of scrupulously avoiding collateral damage and civilian/noncombatant casualties. So George Washington and the Colonial rebels really weren't good enough in their actions for Naaman's view of the Rebel Alliance.
Since you really seem to need this to relate back to your earlier statement that the Rebel Alliance is like the Taliban, I'll clarify that too. No the Rebel alliance isn't like the Taliban. On the scale of unrestrained tactics and noncombatant casualties we have.
The Empire > Suicide Bombers > American Revolutionaries (or US troops in 21st century Iraq and Afghanistan) > the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars.
Please feel free to explain which, if any, of these inequalities you disagree with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
