Empire vs Rebel Alliance

smurf975 · 2004-09-01 20:39:22

the Jedi were the only thing keeping the contraption glued together.

But then its also the Jedi (Palpatine, Darth Sidious, Vader) who destroyed it.

However as you argued that it would have been an enormous corrupt institution without the take over and the following (freedom) war which possibly bring with it changes (to the old republic and empire way of doing things). Like WWII eh?

GCNRevenger · 2004-09-01 20:47:31

Neither Palpatine, Sidious, Maul, or Vader (not Anakin) were Jedi when they acted to destroy the Republic... Sith are an entirely different disipline of force-users... But somthing of a technicality. The Jedi Order is an agency, a branch, of the Republic. To large extent under the control of the Senate and the Chancellor obviously, and they themselves have a loosely structured heirarchy. Their mission, to preserve ("defend") the Republic and maintain order, pretty much through any means nessesarry ("aggressive negotiation tactics"). Mind reading/altering, covert assasination, and most of all the power of foresight made them so powerful that they managed to keep the Republic going for centuries with no military at all.

smurf975 · 2004-09-01 21:03:22

Neither Palpatine, Sidious, Maul, or Vader (not Anakin) were Jedi when they acted to destroy the Republic... Sith are an entirely different disipline of force-users... But somthing of a technicality. The Jedi Order is an agency, a branch, of the Republic. To large extent under the control of the Senate and the Chancellor obviously, and they themselves have a loosely structured heirarchy. Their mission, to preserve ("defend") the Republic and maintain order, pretty much through any means nessesarry ("aggressive negotiation tactics"). Mind reading/altering, covert assasination, and most of all the power of foresight made them so powerful that they managed to keep the Republic going for centuries with no military at all.

Personally I think that the Sith and Jedi have the same goals (order) but use different means to get there.

smurf975 · 2004-09-01 21:09:15

Neither Palpatine, Sidious, Maul, or Vader (not Anakin) were Jedi when they acted to destroy the Republic... Sith are an entirely different disipline of force-users...

If you look at it from a bibical sence. Are devils fallen angels or really monsters that have nothing to do with God's creation?

Because a human does something bad it doesn't make him unhuman (yes it should be punished). But humans doing bad things is normal or else there would be no need for a police, fcc, sec and other agencies. Same goes for Jedi, in history there have always jedi gone bad but they are called Sith. For me they are just nasty jedi's

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-02 06:19:57

A nice little bit of relevant dialogue from the film "Clerks" by Kevin Smith.

http://www.whysanity.net/monos/clerks5. … erks5.html

Now, the Empire/Nazi comparison doesn't really hold up. The Nazis were fighting roughly comparable external powers. The Empire faces only a small group of rebels, an internal insurgency. Call them guerrillas, terrorists, freedom fighters or whatnot but the situation remains that they are using military force against the recognized legitimate government. They don't seem to be terribly popular, after all we get the impression that everyone and their droid openly carries a blaster yet there's no sign of widespread uprisings.

Rebel Alliance, this is telling in itself. An organized entity with a clear chain of command, not a series of independent uprisings that would indicate a huge public support for such action. They must band together from across a galaxy to exert any significant force, though clearly if each world were so heinously oppressed they could deal with the token Imperial forces in the area. If thousands of worlds did so the Empire would not be able to cope with such a huge revolt, even if only passive-resistant. That it hasn't occured, even with the organized rebellion presumably capable of coordinating such a simultaeneous action were the will there to do so, is indicative of the true level of anti-Empire sentiment among the general population.

The Rebels don't appear to operate as "cells" but rather as an organized military, giving them some air of respectability rather than of terrorists, but this can be misleading. One may be tempted to compare them to the Continental Army of the American Revolution, but this doesn't quite hold up either. The Rebellion is not fighting for independence, but rather to destroy the established government everywhere. It's as though Washington crossed the Atlantic and marched on London, the entire dynamic of the conflict is fundamentally different.

So while the Rebellion may in many ways look like a revolutionary army of independence, or even a legitimate faction of a full civil war, its goals are essentially terroristic; to bring down the present regime using whatever means are required. The duties of the Empire to its people and to order demand that it respond agaisnt the uprising. The carnage that would likely follow a Rebel victory makes the matter all the more dire.

Euler · 2004-09-03 15:47:45

Has anyone seen the movie Hero?

The main character (called Nameless) was a young child when a ruthless king massacres his people. He decides to get revenge and trains to become an exceptional swordsman. He works his way into the king's confidence by defeating the king's enemies, and eventually gets close enough to assassinate the king. However, along the way he also realized that the brutal king is also the only person who is strong enough to unify the country and end the constant wars between the states. Eventually he has to make a decision: to kill the king or not to kill the king.

It is not an easy decision. What would you do in his place?

Trebuchet · 2005-03-24 02:39:22

I'm ressurrecting this thread due to the approach of Episode III and the very soon official release of the novelization of same, which will be out next week. Well, that and because it's an interesting topic...

After looking back at the two prequels, and also having looked at the original trilogy, I've decided that the Empire is flat-out the best choice, for several reasons.

First we will dispose of the ones we already know of: first off, representative democracy on a galactic scale is pretty much useless. Second off, the likely consequences of the disintegration of the Empire would be a Hobbesian jungle war of individual planets and small confederations a galaxy wide. Third, as evidenced by Luke's wish to go to the Empire's Academy, Lando's admission that the Empire had not previously hassled Cloud City, and the fact that everyone seems to be armed indicates that the Empire isn't terribly repressive. And, BTW, the Empire had a clear system of succession in mind, to keep infighting to a minimum. It's quite clear that Palpatine had in mind a 'Sith Empire', remembering the rule of 'there are always two, a master and an apprentice'. The apprentice, Darth Vader, would succeed Palpatine and groom some person gifted in the force as the next heir apparent.

However, there's another two reasons for the Empire to be the better choice:

First off, there are counter-elements at work in the Empire, that is, factions willing to depose the Emperor. We know this because it's a major plot point - the climactic scene of "The Empire Strikes Back" where Vader tells Luke he's his father, that they can overthrow the Emperor and 'rule the galaxy as father and son'. A Vader/Luke led Empire is going to be qualitatively different from a Palpatine-led Empire, I don't think I need to elaborate on that.

The second, and more amazing one, is that the Empire would be - and this will sound counterintuitive, but consider the facts - a more humane and moral government.

Wait, the original 'Evil Empire' better than the Republic?

Consider the things going on in the first movie: We see slavery on Tatooine and crime lords being local celebrities at races. Under the Empire, during 'Return of the Jedi', the Hutt crime lords instead seem to be hiding out in the middle of nowhere in some dingy hellhole of a fortress. There is no mention of slavery - if nothing else Darth Vader, Dark Lord of the Sith, is inclined to homicidal venegance and would have dealt with the slave trade... personally.

So really, we can blame Luke for being a hotheaded young fool and not taking the opportunity given him at Bespin to effect a relatively peaceful change, merely by changing his affiliation from the Jedi to the Sith and trading one spoon-bending tradition for another. He almost certainly would have been able to save his friends as well, although he didn't know this - apparently, from the novelization, Vader/Anakin was able to get such amnesty/protection for Padme Amidala from Palpatine.

Palomar · 2005-03-24 07:11:07

*Might go to see Episode III. I've seen the other two prequels and they're but a shadow of the original trilogy's grandeur, IMO. In other words the prequels have, to this point, been forgetable, IMO.

Politics, schmolitics. :;): I'll admit my attention to the politics of "Star Wars" wasn't much...I rather enjoyed the special effects, C3PO and R2D2's fiesty relationship...and Harrison Ford.

I do feel Lucas made a mistake in making Darth Vader the father of Luke and Leia, and those two as twins. There would have been so much more potential for the storyline if everyone were simply UNrelated; or if, at "best," Vader were an uncle.

Anyway, the original trilogy had much more interesting interactions between the characters: Han and Chewbacca trading good-natured insults; the romantic tensions -- complete with sparks flying and barbs exchanged -- between Leia and Han; Luke's jealousy of Han for Leia's affections; and of course the ever-bickering "can't live with you/can't live without you" robots C3PO & R2D2. :laugh: There's so much depth in the original trilogy which the prequels lack.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-24 09:18:29

*Might go to see Episode III. I've seen the other two prequels and they're but a shadow of the original trilogy's grandeur, IMO. In other words the prequels have, to this point, been forgetable, IMO.

Yeah, Episode I was a bit lackluster and Episode II (the Emperor's New Clones) was a second act, a middle chapter building to a conclusion that everyone already new. III should be better.

It's quite clear that Palpatine had in mind a 'Sith Empire', remembering the rule of 'there are always two, a master and an apprentice'. The apprentice, Darth Vader, would succeed Palpatine and groom some person gifted in the force as the next heir apparent.

Possibly, though I get the impression Palpatine wasn't planning on keeling over in the foreseeable future. What could be an interesting possibility though is the rise of a military junta, either as an internal coup or more likely resulting from Palpatine's death. As might have been mentioned earlier in the thread, if they at least partially control the information transfer over such distances they can spin it however they choose, most people would accept it. Grand Moff so and so is head of the new Imperial Council, okay. Whatever.

What the hell is a Moff anyway, where did that come form?

On a related note, Palpatine had legitamacy. He was elected, he was given sweeping powers by an elected Senate, he could be seen as operating fully within the legal confines of the Republic. A hand-picked successor would lack that shroud of legality.

So really, we can blame Luke for being a hotheaded young fool and not taking the opportunity given him at Bespin to effect a relatively peaceful change, merely by changing his affiliation from the Jedi to the Sith and trading one spoon-bending tradition for another.

If we accept Vader's statement at face value. Which incidentally we have no real reason not to, in both the rrequels and the original trilogy the Sith seem to tell the truth more frequently than the Jedi.

Pro-Republic propanda I say!

Trebuchet · 2005-03-24 14:30:12

Possibly, though I get the impression Palpatine wasn't planning on keeling over in the foreseeable future. What could be an interesting possibility though is the rise of a military junta, either as an internal coup or more likely resulting from Palpatine's death. As might have been mentioned earlier in the thread, if they at least partially control the information transfer over such distances they can spin it however they choose, most people would accept it. Grand Moff so and so is head of the new Imperial Council, okay. Whatever.
What the hell is a Moff anyway, where did that come form?
On a related note, Palpatine had legitamacy. He was elected, he was given sweeping powers by an elected Senate, he could be seen as operating fully within the legal confines of the Republic. A hand-picked successor would lack that shroud of legality.

Palpatine certainly wasn't planning on keeling over anytime soon, although dialog in the original trilogy and in this upcoming movie hint that extending their own lifepsan was something the Sith wanted. However, it's quite clear that Vader was well known to be the Emperor's right hand throughout the movies, and he'd have a certain legitimacy from that. That, and he'd simply crush any other pretender to the throne.

If we accept Vader's statement at face value. Which incidentally we have no real reason not to, in both the rrequels and the original trilogy the Sith seem to tell the truth more frequently than the Jedi.

This has always amused me. It's so true! The other funny thing is, their philosophy makes them much more suited to the Jedi's previous role as galactic policemen than the Jedi were themselves. Perhaps the wrong side won the original Sith Wars, way back when. The Jedi would be a few people out in the boonies meditating on the interconnectedness of all things, and the Sith would be crushing all threats to the Republic...

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-24 15:08:38

At the very least, its kind of amusing to watch everybody strain and wave their hands around that the Jedi are the "good" guys...

The Old Republic managed to stay reasonably intact for centuries with no real military power at all. Thousands of races and tens of thousands of planets with trillions of citizens... How? The application of violence or the threat thereof is a nessesity to maintain order on the galactic scale.

Answer: the Jedi Order. Several hundred or a few thousands of "people" each endowed with supernatural powers. Of all their enormous abilities, cheif among them is the ability to look into the future, and predict the future with at least some accuracy.

Given this awsome power, and a small army of lesser but likewise endowed agents that are basically unstopable by any conventional means, can read minds, and even manipulate the thoughts of weaker beings to some extent... could go anywhere and stop anyone they deem a possible "future problem."

This quasi-governmental unelected body of warrior-seers would "take care" of anyone who might eventually become a problem, or so as least as far as the accuracy of their foresight indicates... And if they make an error and send their supernatural goons after you? Well, then thats just too bad...

What does that say to the freedom of the Republic, that these "secret police," chosen only beacause of their miraculous abilities, roams around knocking off or twist the minds of people that could, just maybe be an issue later on.

So much for privacy or the sanctity of your own mind and your own destiny, persecuted for something you haven't even done yet and may not do.

Palomar · 2005-03-24 16:42:13

At the very least, its kind of amusing to watch everybody strain and wave their hands around that the Jedi are the "good" guys...
The Old Republic managed to stay reasonably intact for centuries with no real military power at all. Thousands of races and tens of thousands of planets with trillions of citizens... How? The application of violence or the threat thereof is a nessesity to maintain order on the galactic scale.
Answer: the Jedi Order. Several hundred or a few thousands of "people" each endowed with supernatural powers. Of all their enormous abilities, cheif among them is the ability to look into the future, and predict the future with at least some accuracy.
Given this awsome power, and a small army of lesser but likewise endowed agents that are basically unstopable by any conventional means, can read minds, and even manipulate the thoughts of weaker beings to some extent... could go anywhere and stop anyone they deem a possible "future problem."
This quasi-governmental unelected body of warrior-seers would "take care" of anyone who might eventually become a problem, or so as least as far as the accuracy of their foresight indicates... And if they make an error and send their supernatural goons after you? Well, then thats just too bad...
What does that say to the freedom of the Republic, that these "secret police," chosen only beacause of their miraculous abilities, roams around knocking off or twist the minds of people that could, just maybe be an issue later on.
So much for privacy or the sanctity of your own mind and your own destiny, persecuted for something you haven't even done yet and may not do.

*Did you even bother to read what Cobra Commander and Trebuchet wrote? Doesn't seem so.

As for myself: I'm didn't even mention the words "Sith" nor "Jedi" in my most recent post, and pointed out I'm not overly interested in the politics of this *fictional* story.

Geez, you sure can tell it's 2005. Not allowed to simply sit back and have some fun. Everything must be heavy and serious and Life Or Death.

--Cindy :laugh:

Earthfirst · 2005-03-24 16:56:34

Empire all the way, I think that the Empire is just miss understude. Lord Vader just needs some R and R and I am sure he will stop blowing up planets. He was just having a bad helment day it happens to the best of us.

BWhite · 2005-03-24 16:57:02

On these issues, I can only read David Brin's http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticl … commentary and say "I agree, dude. Well said."

Of COURSE I saw that Palpatine was using the invasion of Naboo to engineer his accession as Chancellor, by getting his cousin, the Queen, to denouce the old (good) Chancellor. I just couldn't credit that the whole thing could be so stupid.
Consider these questions:
# If the queen's so influential, able to topple the head of a galaxy, why was she earlier unable to get any help from all these political allies she's calling upon?
# Um, so what's to keep the shamed-defeated Trade Federation guys from later on screaming "It was Palpatine! He MADE us doo eet!" The fact that the Sith Lord's eyes were in shadow? They really know nothing about a guy they've sworn fealty to and staked everything on? Some savvy traders!
# Palpatine is clearly concerned about being hunted down by the Jedi, right? Yet he draws their newly-roused attention right to his own home planet? He couldn't have used another?
# Oh, and why does he send Maul to kill Amidala and her escorts on Tatooine, when they are bringing her to the Senate to do exactly what he wants her to do? Does that make even marginal sense? (In fact, he'd send a space yacht to pick her up and escort her to the Senate in style, while keeping Darth Maul secret a while longer.) Now that we get right down to it, Palpatine WANTS Amidala to escape from Naboo. Or he should. If Lucas bothered to plot at all.
Oh, the scheme is dumb about forty other ways. But above all, the "success" of Palpatine's plan makes this film vastly darker than the dark but inspiring Empire Strikes Back. For even the rebel "victory" was part of Palpatine's plan! Therefore, none of Annakin's or Obiwan's heroic efforts matter in the slightest, since, as the new Chancellor, Palpatine has to be seen riding to the rescue, in order to enhance his prestige. He was planning to smash the seige anyway, to become a public savior and reinforce his rule.
So, all the dead Gungas died for nothing. They might as well have waited a week for the Chancellor to arrive and "save" the day! Their heroism's wasted.
Think about that. The Gungas, the brave pilots, the hapless traders, the futility Of Qui-Gon's death. Not one heroic action mattered an iota, even as tragic irony! It's an unalloyed bummer. Like Oedipus. Jeepers.

George Lucas, you've been swatted down, hard.

= = =

This is good, also:

Some people expressed deep affinity for the PERSONAL redemption of the relationship between father & son, in Return of the Jedi. This is separate from the matter of the Galaxy at large, which owes Vader nothing for his deathbed conversion. I confess, in my focus on the latter, I may have given the former short shrift. After all, Luke Skywalker is a genuine hero. I never had any complaints about him at all... except for bad acting. His need for this fatherly reconciliation/redemption is a legitimate topic.

= = =

"Oh no! There's an unstoppable robot army! Of course all we have to do is pull a master switch and they'll all shut off!"

Leading to this coffee spewing passage:

This recalls blowing up the shield projector in "Return of the Jedi" (which is achieved entirely thanks to the wookie -- neither Luke nor Leia makes any real difference in achieving the Rebel victory. Think about it!). Or a computer virus shutting down all alien shields in "Independence Day." Or Obi-Wan dialing down the tractor beam. Or the hero in "Logan's Run" shooting one computer console and blowing up a city. And so on. Yeesh! Are villain equipment-designers really that bad in every off-Earth empire? In fairness, this cliché is endemic. Ever notice how, in "Star Trek," Kirk talked five different super-computers into self-destructing? If the universe really is like this, we Earthlings are gonna kick butt when we get out there!

Edited By BWhite on 1111707867

Cobra Commander · 2005-03-24 20:37:51

George Lucas, you've been swatted down, hard.

Well, maybe. Too many people tend to forget what Star Wars is, endowing it with all this meaning and substance that isn't really there. We're talking about an homage to 1930's Flash Gordon serials after all. Space opera doesn't have to make sense, it's got rocketships and explosions.

Which you can hear in space.

from the article:

So, all the dead Gungas died for nothing. They might as well have waited a week for the Chancellor to arrive and "save" the day! Their heroism's wasted.

The same thing occured to me when I first saw it. I kinda liked it. Not only were they the diversion, but the attack they diverted for was equally meaningless. Completely useless but mildly irritating in the process, a fitting scenario for the species that gave us Jar Jar Binks. <shudders>

but while there are all sorts of things "wrong" with Star Wars, I know full well that I won't be going to work on May 19.

srmeaney · 2005-03-25 09:06:21

I dispute your interpretation of Hero. Frankly it looked like little more than historical prophaganda to cover the dishonor of an emperor. He rewards some fool a vast amount of money (6000 gold coin) and the taxation rites over a huge number of housholds for having dispatched well skilled assassins. At which the emperor comes up with a big pile of bull to justify taking it it all back. He calls the warrior a traitor and as the poor slob flees to the palace gate to escape this treason and treachery, he is cut down by a hail of arrows. I'm holding out for house of flying daggers.

Palomar · 2005-05-17 07:40:49

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/film_star_wars_parody]Just in time...

*...Star Wars "Revenge of the Sith" parody.

We'll go to see the film in a month -- after the hoopla has died down (don't like crowds or long lines).

I'm looking forward to this prequel; the other two are forgettable. Hopefully this one will come through.

Bullock, 27, a Web site developer and part-time filmmaker, said he is not a big fan of the prequels. He was annoyed by Jake Lloyd, the child actor who portrayed Anakin Skywalker in "The Phantom Menace" — "it wasn't believable to me that that's the cat that is going to grow up to be Darth Vader" — and thought Hayden Christensen was too whiny to be the future Vader.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-05-17 08:39:41

--on another note--

*I was just now checking bio info on Mark Hamill and Hayden Christensen, to be sure of their dates of birth. Mark Hamill was interviewed during the world premiere of "The Revenge of the Sith." He was born in 1951; Christensen in 1981.

I thought it'd be funny to have, on camera, Hamill squeezing his arm around Christensen's shoulder and yelling, "Hi dad!"

:laugh:

Only in the movies, teehee...

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-17 10:13:47

I thought it'd be funny to have, on camera, Hamill squeezing his arm around Christensen's shoulder and yelling, "Hi dad!"

On a similar note back when Episode I came out I thought it was interesting that Ian McDiarmid, who played the Emperor in "Jedi", came back nearly 20 years later to play his younger self.

Incidentally, I suspect "Sith" is going to be largely his movie.

Palomar · 2005-05-17 10:45:51

I thought it'd be funny to have, on camera, Hamill squeezing his arm around Christensen's shoulder and yelling, "Hi dad!"
On a similar note back when Episode I came out I thought it was interesting that Ian McDiarmid, who played the Emperor in "Jedi", came back nearly 20 years later to play his younger self.

*Really? I didn't know that. If I'd heard/read it previously, I completely forgot. Now that IS weird. If only, huh? Tomorrow I'll play the role of a 20-year-old.

I wonder why cameo roles haven't been given to Hamill, Fischer and Ford? They could be made up to look very different (beyond the age difference between their ST movies and now, of course).

But then I sometimes dislike cameo appearances.

Maybe they've gotten them in this film and I'm not in the know.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-19 06:33:57

As good a place as any for this. . .

Happy Empire Day to all!

Palomar · 2005-05-19 06:37:47

As good a place as any for this. . .
Happy Empire Day to all!

*Okay, NOT asking for any spoilers (beyond what can already be surmised without having yet seen the film):

Is it a worthy successor to the original ST trilogy?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-19 07:14:04

Is it a worthy successor to the original ST trilogy?

Whereas the previous two films were disappointing, this one is Star Wars. Sure, it has some wretchedly bad dialog, silly droid gags and things that just don't make sense but it is entertaining and very much in the same spirit as the original trilogy. A little more gruesome, but not overly so.

That said, it seems like it should have been longer despite its two and a half hour running time. A few things seemed rushed, will definately have to check out the extended cut DVD that we all know is coming.

Incidentally, you can make a pretty good drinking game centered around severed heads and limbs.

Too tired to really write a proper review but the midnight showing was definately worth the sleep deprivation. My wife and I showed up about an hour and a half early to get good seats and to my mild surprise the theater was already quite crowded. They had four theaters showing it, sold in order of ticket purchase. My wife picked ours up late last week so we were in with the real hardcore fans. It was really just a big party, lots of people in Jedi robes and numerous lightsaber duels. The self-proclaimed champion called me out but none of the "vanquished" would lend a saber. Pity, would have been fun.

In short, definately an improvement over the last two efforts. The beginning is a little iffy but once it gets going it works, except for the usual Lucas dialog and the like. Star Wars fans, this is the one you've been waiting for. It could have been better, but it's still good. And Jar Jar has no lines which has gotta count for something. :;):

srmeaney · 2005-05-23 01:18:18

Whereas the previous two films were disappointing, this one is Star Wars. Sure, it has some wretchedly bad dialog, silly droid gags and things that just don't make sense but it is entertaining and very much in the same spirit as the original trilogy. A little more gruesome, but not overly so.

What do you know? It was the most brutal and violent film in the entire STARWARS saga. The beginning bit with "lookmanohands" was bad enough but then that whole "I'll just pop into the Jedi citadel and slaughter all the younglings" was totally shocking (obviously that whole Yoda: "Too old to be trained as Jedi" comment was more damaging than we thought) as was the very nasty "how much of me is there left" ending. Some of the dialog was more earth-political 2001AD than one would ever accept in escapist sci-fi.

That wasn't Starwars, that was d grade Tarantino.

Rxke · 2005-05-23 04:58:36

My wife and I showed up about an hour and a half early to get good seats

I try to imagine what kind of suit YOU were wearing...

the 'first settler on Mars' thread, that must've left some traces, no?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-09-01 20:39:22

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#27 2004-09-01 20:47:31

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#28 2004-09-01 21:03:22

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#29 2004-09-01 21:09:15

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#30 2004-09-02 06:19:57

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#31 2004-09-03 15:47:45

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#32 2005-03-24 02:39:22

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#33 2005-03-24 07:11:07

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#34 2005-03-24 09:18:29

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#35 2005-03-24 14:30:12

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#36 2005-03-24 15:08:38

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#37 2005-03-24 16:42:13

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#38 2005-03-24 16:56:34

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#39 2005-03-24 16:57:02

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#40 2005-03-24 20:37:51

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#41 2005-03-25 09:06:21

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#42 2005-05-17 07:40:49

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#43 2005-05-17 08:39:41

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#44 2005-05-17 10:13:47

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#45 2005-05-17 10:45:51

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#46 2005-05-19 06:33:57

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#47 2005-05-19 06:37:47

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#48 2005-05-19 07:14:04

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#49 2005-05-23 01:18:18

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

#50 2005-05-23 04:58:36

Re: Empire vs Rebel Alliance

Board footer