2. Had you or the author of this piece seen the movie the whole article falls apart.
Chacellor Palpatine set up the entire situation. He ordered the creation of the clones.
At the end, it was revealed that the Rebel Jedi, Lord Dooku, worked for the Sith Lord, who also happens to be... Palpatine.
Palpatine's agents created teh insurrection, pluss both armies.
As for the rest of this assinine piece, comparing the GAR of the movie to the Civil War is silly. The citizen soldiers who violunteered and/or were drafted are very different from the clones. The same holds for the Rebel army. I woyuld never call the Confederate infantryman an automaton, but following the (il)logic of the article the author does.
I too was waiting for somebody to do it almost immediately after I saw the film. Grand army of the republic wasn't the line that did it though. It was the 1000 years of union line.
2. Had you or the author of this piece seen the movie the whole article falls apart.
A bit presumptuous, don't you think? I've seen the movie. Have you?
Chacellor Palpatine set up the entire situation. He ordered the creation of the clones. At the end, it was revealed that the Rebel Jedi, Lord Dooku, worked for the Sith Lord, who also happens to be... Palpatine.
No kidding! Hence my earlier reference - the cover motive was maintaining the union, the real motive was elsewhere, and the result was consolidating power in the executive.
As for the rest of this assinine piece, comparing the GAR of the movie to the Civil War is silly. The citizen soldiers who violunteered and/or were drafted are very different from the clones.
Yet again, you seem to have missed the entire point of both the article and the movie. The comparison has nothing to do with the composition of the army or its conduction (at least yet). It's all in the way Palpatine conducted himself - his rhetorical motives versus his real motives, and the result of his exercise - consolidating power in the executive.
If you missed that, you must have been sleeping through the entire speech scene. Either that, or you are angry about the inclusion of indisputably Lincolnian motifs in the character of Palpatine during that scene, and therefore resort to an escape alternative of (1) attacking the people who point it out and (2) diverting attention from it by focusing on unrelated details elsewhere that were not included in the original analogy to begin with by either Lucas or the author of that article.