Since Revan's Empire and the Sith are something that Jedi opposed on both fronts, I don't see how they fall into that. And the Jedi are the protectors of the Republic, not the rulers of it. They're subservient to the democratically elected Senate. Obi-Wan even openly spells that out in Episode 3, that his loyalty "is to the Republic, to democracy." Also, the clones being nameless, faceless people we aren't supposed to care about? Actually no. The 2008 clone wars series regularly gives them names, personalities, unique hairstyles and armor customizations, even entire episodes dedicated to the clones with nary a Jedi in sight. There's even an episode where a clone abandons the army to live in peace with a woman he fell in love with, and the Jedi look the other way. The Jedi regularly show care and compassion to their clone soldiers and the only one who doesn't turns out to be a Sith sympathizer. As for there not being an army, from what I heard in the EU, organized militas were used whenever there was an armed conflict, and until the Clone Wars that was enough because there was never a problem that spread beyond a planet or two. Plus it's clear that planets in the Republic have their own standing armed forces (see Naboo's fighters) just not the kind that are prepared for a galaxy spanning conflict. I'd call the Republic more complacent than stupid. Which, to be fair, was eventually considered to be a point as there were a lot of planets within the Republic who felt the system had become ineffective and clogged, that's why the Seperatists had so much support.evilthecat said:Snip
These are some interesting thoughts, although something I feel I should argue is that...I want to say around half of fiction could apply to that, considering that a good deal of it applies to a small concentration of people making very important decisions. And I do agree with you that openly siding with abuses of power is icky, it's why I despise Frank Miller's take on Batman, because he more or less writes the guy as autocratic. Honestly, I think the fear of abuse of power is why so many superheroes have stupidly strict no kill rules (and I say stupidly because it kind of gets dumb when everyone thinks Batman killed the joker and there are mobs of people in clown paint demanding justice for him, that's just going too far in the other direction) and it's why when Batman gets crap for doing something wrong, it isn't presented as "he makes mistakes but he gets results" and more "he's on the wrong path and if he doesn't change now it's going to end very badly." Honestly I don't really disagree with anything you said and part of me doesn't really know why I'm arguing with you, but I'm honestly enjoying this conversation.