Peacekeepers in SF
James Nicoll
the Patrol was going to step on local troublemakers the way the
Conservatives stepped on Riel [TAN 1]. In reality that hasn't
happened and successful peacekeeping is barely newsworthy (Although
you can generate any number of headlines by killing Somali youths)
and often reviled.
It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
global regime?
James Nicoll
TAN1: Executing Riel, a Francophone Meti, in the 1880s meant that for
the next century or so the Conservatives would not be able to take a
majority of seats in Quebec, one of the two keystone provinces as far
as forming a Federal government in Canada goes. There's something you
don't see much in SF, the way popping a popular rebel or two can
cost you for a long time in regions that probably wouldn't have let
the rebels sit down to dinner with them.
--
"Repress the urge to sprout wings or self-ignite!...This man's an
Episcopalian!...They have definite views."
Pibgorn Oct 31/02
Luke Webber
news:asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com...
[snip]
> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
> global regime?
It's not post-1970 (actually 1965), but I really think John Brunner's
_Telepathist_ rates a mention in this context, because the UN peacekeeping
forces are so central to the story. Those forces *work*, largely due to the
efforts of telepaths in the service.
It's also interesting because the protagonist's father is an urban
terrorist, so the first UN peacekeeping group we see is dealing with the
results of a terror attack, in a Britain of the furure, rather than actual
war.
Luke
James Nicoll
Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
>"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>[snip]
>> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
>> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
>> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
>> global regime?
>
>It's not post-1970 (actually 1965), but I really think John Brunner's
>_Telepathist_ rates a mention in this context, because the UN peacekeeping
>forces are so central to the story. Those forces *work*, largely due to the
>efforts of telepaths in the service.
Can you imagine that working in a modern SF novel?
"Hi, we're from the UN and we're here to read your mind. Please
remain calm."
>It's also interesting because the protagonist's father is an urban
>terrorist, so the first UN peacekeeping group we see is dealing with the
>results of a terror attack, in a Britain of the furure, rather than actual
>war.
Britain? Is it ever specified in the book? I reread the US edition
and didn't see an unambigious marker as to the nation. When I was a kid
I assume it was the US because they seemed to have an unending series of
riots.
Luke Webber
> In article <cbvG9.9380$q43....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
> >It's not post-1970 (actually 1965), but I really think John Brunner's
> >_Telepathist_ rates a mention in this context, because the UN
peacekeeping
> >forces are so central to the story. Those forces *work*, largely due to
the
> >efforts of telepaths in the service.
>
> Can you imagine that working in a modern SF novel?
>
> "Hi, we're from the UN and we're here to read your mind. Please
> remain calm."
Remember, though, that the general populace were softened up by a
bombardment of very unsubtle propaganda. Ilse Krondstadt (top Israeli TP)
was practically canonised in the media, including garish, Bollywood-style
movies.
> >It's also interesting because the protagonist's father is an urban
> >terrorist, so the first UN peacekeeping group we see is dealing with the
> >results of a terror attack, in a Britain of the furure, rather than
actual
> >war.
>
> Britain? Is it ever specified in the book? I reread the US edition
> and didn't see an unambigious marker as to the nation. When I was a kid
> I assume it was the US because they seemed to have an unending series of
> riots.
I think it was plain that Brunner wanted to create a generic Western setting
that we could all identify with. I say "British" because some idiom slipped
through which I thought peculiarly British ("Crooky" is one example that
sticks in my mind). Of course, that could just Brunner was British, and
naturally drew on some British idiom. The university students in the latter
sections of the book also struck me as British rather than American, again
due to their dialogue.
Luke
Robert Sneddon
<jdni...@panix.com> writes
> In olden days, the UN was going to be the WorldGov and
>the Patrol was going to step on local troublemakers the way the
>Conservatives stepped on Riel [TAN 1]. In reality that hasn't
>happened and successful peacekeeping is barely newsworthy (Although
>you can generate any number of headlines by killing Somali youths)
>and often reviled.
I did some research recently and discovered, to my surprise, that there
is currently only one American soldier deployed anywhere under UN
auspices as a peacekeeper. There are some police and observers here and
there, but only a single solitary soldier, currently in Ethiopia and
Eritrea (UNMEE, perhaps doing mine clearance or similar, the reports are
not specific).
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/Oct2002Countrysummary.htm
good as of October this year. Tanzania has three soldiers, in contrast.
Heck, Nepal has over 800 soldiers on peacekeeping duties. In total
personnel counts (civilian police, military observers and troops),
America comes 18th after countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan.
More Swedes have died (64) on UN peacekeeping duties than Americans
(57); even in Somalia II and Blackhawk Down, more Pakistanis died (42)
than Americans (30). Canada has a memorial to UN peacekeepers, having
supplied lots of them and taken serious casualties in doing so (106
dead over the years).
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/fatalities/totals.htm
It may be that after the screwup in Somalia the UN is reluctant to
allow the Americans to operate under the cover of the blue helmet.
--
Robert Sneddon nojay (at) nojay (dot) fsnet (dot) co (dot) uk
how...@brazee.net
End of Eternity <<.
Steve Glover
<Omixoch...@yahoo.com> writes
>"In order that this novel may be stored and transmitted via the Internet
>without violating standards of decency, the text has been processed to
>render all improper terms harmless. To be specific, potentially
>objectionable words have been replaced by the names of some of the foremost
>fighters in the war against uncontrolled expression: men such as Senators
>Exon, Helms, Nunn, and Pell; Representatives Hyde, Bliley, Wyden, and
>Gorton; and their ilk...."
Didn't Gore Vidal do this in one of the Myron/Myra Breckinbridge(sp?)
books?
Steve
--
Steve Glover, Fell Services Ltd. Available from - 01/08/2002
Weblog at http://weblog.akicif.net/blogger.html
Home: steve at fell.demon.co.uk, 0131 551 3835
Away: steve.glover at ukonline.co.uk, 07940 584 653
James Nicoll
Steve Glover <st...@fell.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <92D7A4103...@news.cis.dfn.de>, Omixochitl
><Omixoch...@yahoo.com> writes
>>"In order that this novel may be stored and transmitted via the Internet
>>without violating standards of decency, the text has been processed to
>>render all improper terms harmless. To be specific, potentially
>>objectionable words have been replaced by the names of some of the foremost
>>fighters in the war against uncontrolled expression: men such as Senators
>>Exon, Helms, Nunn, and Pell; Representatives Hyde, Bliley, Wyden, and
>>Gorton; and their ilk...."
>
>Didn't Gore Vidal do this in one of the Myron/Myra Breckinbridge(sp?)
>books?
>
it as well.
James Nicoll
Omixochitl <Omixoch...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in <asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com>:
>
>> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
>> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
>> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
>> global regime?
>
>novel and a small-press production.
>
Hmmm. A new house in Congress for 'special interests.' What's
a special interest when it is at home? For that matter, what does politics
with no special interests look like?
James Nicoll
Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
>"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:asdvcq$a1n$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <cbvG9.9380$q43....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
>> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
>
>> >It's not post-1970 (actually 1965), but I really think John Brunner's
>> >_Telepathist_ rates a mention in this context, because the UN
>peacekeeping
>> >forces are so central to the story. Those forces *work*, largely due to
>the
>> >efforts of telepaths in the service.
>>
>> Can you imagine that working in a modern SF novel?
>>
>> "Hi, we're from the UN and we're here to read your mind. Please
>> remain calm."
>
>Remember, though, that the general populace were softened up by a
>bombardment of very unsubtle propaganda. Ilse Krondstadt (top Israeli TP)
>was practically canonised in the media, including garish, Bollywood-style
>movies.
I can't help but suspect Certain Elements who would be reliably
unhappy with being mind read by UN telepaths would be even less happy to
know the telepath in question is Jewish.
On the other hand, now I have a mental image of a Bollywood
musical about UN telepaths in my head. Thanks. I think.
James Nicoll
James Nicoll
Robert Sneddon <no...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com>, James Nicoll
><jdni...@panix.com> writes
>> In olden days, the UN was going to be the WorldGov and
>>the Patrol was going to step on local troublemakers the way the
>>Conservatives stepped on Riel [TAN 1]. In reality that hasn't
>>happened and successful peacekeeping is barely newsworthy (Although
>>you can generate any number of headlines by killing Somali youths)
>>and often reviled.
>
> I did some research recently and discovered, to my surprise, that there
>is currently only one American soldier deployed anywhere under UN
>auspices as a peacekeeper. There are some police and observers here and
>there, but only a single solitary soldier, currently in Ethiopia and
>Eritrea (UNMEE, perhaps doing mine clearance or similar, the reports are
>not specific).
>
do you want as peacekeepers, people from a nation that has no realistic
chance of taking over and forcing everyone to bow towards Bay Street
or a nation where if the President gets mildly peeved you could find
yourself bouncing around the stratosphere in tiny, irradiated fragments?
Small or militarily irrelevent nations make better peacekeepers because
the locals don't have to keep an eye out for imperial ambitions and the
peacekeepers can't be tempted by them.
> It may be that after the screwup in Somalia the UN is reluctant to
>allow the Americans to operate under the cover of the blue helmet.
You know US troops are in Somalia now, right? No blue helmets,
though.
Johnny1A
It goes deeper than that. The general public in the USA has _always_
been of ambiguous mind about the UN, and _any_ international authority
whatever. It's an almost visceral reaction, going all the way back to
the origins of the country in the Revolution.
Certainly, though, the endless screwups didn't help. The UN has some
fundamental internal structural and 'cultural' problems to solve
before it can really be effective.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> In olden days, the UN was going to be the WorldGov and
> the Patrol was going to step on local troublemakers the way the
> Conservatives stepped on Riel [TAN 1]. In reality that hasn't
> happened and successful peacekeeping is barely newsworthy (Although
> you can generate any number of headlines by killing Somali youths)
> and often reviled.
The 'old' SF UN scenario derives in much from Campbell and Heinlein
(oddly enough). It captures a certain pattern of thinking that was
popular among intellectual circles in the US and UK at the end of
World War II and just after.
Heinlein wrote _The Last Days of the United States_, an article
calling for the UN to become a world state, and Campbell wrote an
article advising writers to consider the story possibilities of the
tensions between national governments and the growing internationalist
UN power in the aftermath of the war. In many of RAH's early stories,
the assumption of the UN and its 'peace patrol' form part of the
background.
In fact, the UN was largely irrelevant within two years of its
founding, (which in fact RAH predicted in his article, which is why he
called for massive changes in it), and the fundamental assumptions
behind its design were of questionable accuracy. The Cold War ended
what few illusions were left.
In the real world, peacekeeping tends to be reviled for many of the
same reasons that police _hate and dread_ domestic calls.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> In article <cbvG9.9380$q43....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Luke Webber <lu...@webber.com.au> wrote:
> >"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> >[snip]
> >> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
> >> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
> >> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
> >> global regime?
> >
> >It's not post-1970 (actually 1965), but I really think John Brunner's
> >_Telepathist_ rates a mention in this context, because the UN peacekeeping
> >forces are so central to the story. Those forces *work*, largely due to the
> >efforts of telepaths in the service.
>
> Can you imagine that working in a modern SF novel?
>
> "Hi, we're from the UN and we're here to read your mind. Please
> remain calm."
I wouldn't remain calm.
Shermanlee
James Nicoll
You well might. Telepathists have interplanetary range and
considerable skill. The only governor on them seems to be communal
decency and a lack of, how did I put it last time, Alice Hong UN
Pacification Agent types. Or even Bester-types.
Robert Sneddon
<sherm...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>It goes deeper than that. The general public in the USA has _always_
>been of ambiguous mind about the UN, and _any_ international authority
>whatever.
I'd guess because America remains the major force that can throw its
weight around in the world with impunity. It wants to be the only
international authority with, well, authority.
> It's an almost visceral reaction, going all the way back to
>the origins of the country in the Revolution.
America has vacillated between being part of the world and wanting to
remain in splendid isolation. That last option probably died forever
when unrestricted sea warfare occurred in the 1914-18 war, but it still
remains a warm fantasy in many American hearts. The same hearts love the
concept of free trade...
>
>Certainly, though, the endless screwups didn't help. The UN has some
>fundamental internal structural and 'cultural' problems to solve
>before it can really be effective.
To be really effective the UN would have to be able to disarm any
country in the world. Including America. The US government has already
stated that under a raft of WoMD treaties currently under discussion,
independent inspectors will not be permitted access to their biological
and chemical warfare research laboratories. It is entirely feasible that
these treaties will be passed without America signing up to them,
leaving the second-largest producer and researcher of such weapons free
to continue development and production while the rest of the world
turns away from them.
Elf M. Sternberg
> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
> global regime?
David Brin's _Earth_ features a functioning UN, at least the
division of environmental protection or whatever it was called, doing a
competent and responsible job, for some definition thereof.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg will be unavailable during November.
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/
Stewart Robert Hinsley
<jdni...@panix.com> writes
> This makes sense, really. Say you are a troubled nation. Who
>do you want as peacekeepers, people from a nation that has no realistic
>chance of taking over and forcing everyone to bow towards Bay Street
>or a nation where if the President gets mildly peeved you could find
>yourself bouncing around the stratosphere in tiny, irradiated fragments?
>Small or militarily irrelevent nations make better peacekeepers because
>the locals don't have to keep an eye out for imperial ambitions and the
>peacekeepers can't be tempted by them.
ObSF: Tau Zero (Swedes)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley
James Nicoll
(Apologies to Lehrer)
Once all the Swedes were warlike and mean
But that couldn't happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1709
And they've hardly bothered us since then
I'd like to register my objection to Peter the Great picking
1709 to kick Swedish ass rather than one where I could steal a verse
and have it rhyme.
Mark Jones
> In article <b3030854.0212...@posting.google.com>, Johnny1A
> <sherm...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>>It goes deeper than that. The general public in the USA has _always_
>>been of ambiguous mind about the UN, and _any_ international authority
>>whatever.
>
>
> I'd guess because America remains the major force that can throw its
> weight around in the world with impunity. It wants to be the only
> international authority with, well, authority.
Keep telling yourself that. It couldn't possibly be that we don't trust
an organization infested by third-world kleptocrats and stooges of
kleptocrats with the authority to wield a butterknife, much less to
become the armed agents of a world government. It couldn't possibly be
that I don't want to live under a world government (de jure _or_ de
facto) for the same reason I object to excessive federal authority in
the US itself--the more variety there is in how people organize their
lives, the better the chances of everyone being able to find a situation
that suits them. One size _never_ fits all.
> To be really effective the UN would have to be able to disarm any
> country in the world. Including America.
And given the virulent resistance to anything that even _looks_ like
trying to disarm us by our _own_ government, does it really surprise you
that many Americans think that allowing an organization like the United
Nations to do the same is even more unthinkable?
--
Mark Jones
"This is a matter of opinion--I disagree."
"Are you kidding? This is USENET! Two men enter, one man leaves!"
--from a usenet discussion
mike stone
>
> David Brin's _Earth_ features a functioning UN, at least the
>division of environmental protection or whatever it was called, doing a
>competent and responsible job, for some definition thereof.
>
Wel, _trying_ too. Iirc, things were in such a mess that God (under another
name; Gaia or summat) had to intervene to prevent disaster
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough England
The gap between genius and insanity is measured in success.
Luke Webber
> I can't help but suspect Certain Elements who would be reliably
> unhappy with being mind read by UN telepaths would be even less happy to
> know the telepath in question is Jewish.
You bet. I think the mass-market propaganda was aimed mostly at the unwashed
masses.
FWIW, I am one who would be reliably unhappy about this sort of setup,
though not by the ethnicity of the practitioners.
On a positive note, TPs in Brunner's world tend to drift into beneficial or
neutral professions, as a side-effect of their heightened empathy, though
there is the odd rogue. Let's not contemplate the effects of such working
for al Qaeda. Or Mossad or the CIA, for that matter. =8^O
> On the other hand, now I have a mental image of a Bollywood
> musical about UN telepaths in my head. Thanks. I think.
You're welcome, but please keep it to yourself. If I hear of a script deal,
I'll be wanting my cut. <g>
Luke
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> (Apologies to Lehrer)
>
> Once all the Swedes were warlike and mean
> But that couldn't happen again
> We taught them a lesson in 1709
> And they've hardly bothered us since then
>
> I'd like to register my objection to Peter the Great picking
>1709 to kick Swedish ass rather than one where I could steal a verse
>and have it rhyme.
Well, now... it so happens that the last time the Swedes were at
war *was* in 1814, which does rhyme. Though they won that last
time, what they won was Norway, which may not have been considered
worthwhile in the long run (note how it took them less than 100
years to let us go again, peacefully that time).
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
James Nicoll
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
>In article <asggg3$kfd$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> (Apologies to Lehrer)
>>
>> Once all the Swedes were warlike and mean
>> But that couldn't happen again
>> We taught them a lesson in 1709
>> And they've hardly bothered us since then
>>
>> I'd like to register my objection to Peter the Great picking
>>1709 to kick Swedish ass rather than one where I could steal a verse
>>and have it rhyme.
>
>Well, now... it so happens that the last time the Swedes were at
>war *was* in 1814, which does rhyme. Though they won that last
>time, what they won was Norway, which may not have been considered
>worthwhile in the long run (note how it took them less than 100
>years to let us go again, peacefully that time).
>
song or it isn't funny.
BTW, boy, is Poltava nowhere near Sweden. Except for the losing
thing, good show Sweden.
John Schilling
> I did some research recently and discovered, to my surprise, that there
>is currently only one American soldier deployed anywhere under UN
>auspices as a peacekeeper. There are some police and observers here and
>there, but only a single solitary soldier, currently in Ethiopia and
>Eritrea (UNMEE, perhaps doing mine clearance or similar, the reports are
>not specific).
>http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/Oct2002Countrysummary.htm
> good as of October this year. Tanzania has three soldiers, in contrast.
>Heck, Nepal has over 800 soldiers on peacekeeping duties. In total
>personnel counts (civilian police, military observers and troops),
>America comes 18th after countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan.
> More Swedes have died (64) on UN peacekeeping duties than Americans
>(57); even in Somalia II and Blackhawk Down, more Pakistanis died (42)
>than Americans (30). Canada has a memorial to UN peacekeepers, having
>supplied lots of them and taken serious casualties in doing so (106
>dead over the years).
>http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/fatalities/totals.htm
> It may be that after the screwup in Somalia the UN is reluctant to
>allow the Americans to operate under the cover of the blue helmet.
Depends on what you mean by, "Screwup in Somalia".
Certainly the whole peacekeeping effort was screwed up from the start,
and the UN shares (but only shares) blame for that. However, most
Americans didn't much notice that screwup.
The highly publicized bit where 19 Americans died in one night, also
arguably a screwup, but Task Force Ranger was not wearing blue helmets,
not under UN command, and not engaged in peacekeeping.
That last is, I think, the real key. Lots of people can do peacekeeping.
Warfighting is mostly an American thing. We're better at it than anyone
else, and we prefer its clarity to the bloody ambiguity that is usually
called "peacekeeping". So we leave the latter to the UN and the bulk
of its members, and when there is no peace to be kept but a war to be
fought, we're on it.
Us and the Brits, who are not so numerous but still rather good in a
fight and up for a good fight. I doubt an SAS team would have made
much difference in Mogadishu, but it's one bit of help I doubt anyone
on our side would have turned down.
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *
Johnny1A
> In article <b3030854.0212...@posting.google.com>, Johnny1A
> <sherm...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >It goes deeper than that. The general public in the USA has _always_
> >been of ambiguous mind about the UN, and _any_ international authority
> >whatever.
>
> I'd guess because America remains the major force that can throw its
> weight around in the world with impunity. It wants to be the only
> international authority with, well, authority.
That overcomplicates it considerably. If you want to understand why
America is the way it is, recall that even when the UN was _founded_
there was a broad and instinctive undercurrent of distrust, and the UN
was backed by a _very_ popular wartime President.
America was born in a Revolution, and even the Federal Government was
founded with an eye to limiting its powers, and was controversial even
so. The idea of UN with overriding powers over America is something
most Americans reject on a fundamental level.
>
> America has vacillated between being part of the world and wanting to
> remain in splendid isolation. That last option probably died forever
> when unrestricted sea warfare occurred in the 1914-18 war, but it still
> remains a warm fantasy in many American hearts. The same hearts love the
> concept of free trade...
A slight error here, many of the Americans who most distrust the UN
also dislike the entire WTO/GATT/etc trade structure. A peculiar
political alliance of convenience exists in America against 'free
trade' and its international organizations, one linking die-hard
leftists and socialists with hard-core right-wingers.
> >
> >Certainly, though, the endless screwups didn't help. The UN has some
> >fundamental internal structural and 'cultural' problems to solve
> >before it can really be effective.
>
> To be really effective the UN would have to be able to disarm any
> country in the world. Including America. The US government has already
> stated that under a raft of WoMD treaties currently under discussion,
> independent inspectors will not be permitted access to their biological
> and chemical warfare research laboratories.
Yes. Any President who said America was _bound_ to admit inspectors
would see his/her political career and popularity evaporate.
Impeachment might well follow if the President didn't spin out a
retraction _fast_. Any presidential or congressional/senate candidate
who advocated such a thing openly would then have the pleasure of
watching his/her opposition sail to victory (except for a very few
special case Congressional districts).
Fair or not, it's political reality.
> It is entirely feasible that
> these treaties will be passed without America signing up to them,
> leaving the second-largest producer and researcher of such weapons free
> to continue development and production while the rest of the world
> turns away from them.
Actually, it's highly unlikely that all of the signatories will
_really_ turn away from them...
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
LOL. I meant "I wouldn't _voluntarily_ remain calm."
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
Interesting point, since in that very novel, the protagonist points
out (correctly) to the female lead (a Swede herself) that even with
the best of intentions, the Swedes under that system were gradually,
inexorably being transformed into later-day Romans. World conquest by
default.
Shermanlee
Mark Atwood
> and chemical warfare research laboratories. It is entirely feasible that
> these treaties will be passed without America signing up to them,
> leaving the second-largest producer and researcher of such weapons free
> to continue development and production while the rest of the world
> turns away from them.
We learned *that* lesson the hard way, and will not make it again.
I begin to think that the US was the only major player to NOT
weaponize smallpox.
--
Mark Atwood | Well done is better than well said.
m...@pobox.com |
http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mark Atwood
> > stated that under a raft of WoMD treaties currently under discussion,
> > independent inspectors will not be permitted access to their biological
> > and chemical warfare research laboratories.
>
> Yes. Any President who said America was _bound_ to admit inspectors
> would see his/her political career and popularity evaporate.
Reagan was able to get away with the USSR sending inspectors for
a nuclear treaty. But he did it at the *height* of his popularity,
and it was kept very very low-key, almost off the radar.
I wonder if the Russian Commonwealth still sends them?
Brandon Ray
Mark Atwood wrote:
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) writes:
> > > stated that under a raft of WoMD treaties currently under discussion,
> > > independent inspectors will not be permitted access to their biological
> > > and chemical warfare research laboratories.
> >
> > Yes. Any President who said America was _bound_ to admit inspectors
> > would see his/her political career and popularity evaporate.
That's true. But then, the United States has not been forced to agree to this
as a condition of being allowed to surrender against a superior enemy.
Nations that lose wars are often required to submit to conditions that they
would normally find intolerable.
--
You know how it hurts a lot when you get a paper cut? Hell is a bunch worse
than that. -- seen on Usenet, 11/16/02
Peter Morris
> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
> global regime?
The Phantom Menace, I suppose.
Johnny1A
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) writes:
> > > stated that under a raft of WoMD treaties currently under discussion,
> > > independent inspectors will not be permitted access to their biological
> > > and chemical warfare research laboratories.
> >
> > Yes. Any President who said America was _bound_ to admit inspectors
> > would see his/her political career and popularity evaporate.
>
> Reagan was able to get away with the USSR sending inspectors for
> a nuclear treaty. But he did it at the *height* of his popularity,
> and it was kept very very low-key, almost off the radar.
>
> I wonder if the Russian Commonwealth still sends them?
Note that it was by specific American agreement, not a general
submission to a world-wide authority. Constitutionally, the President
can abrogate _ANY_ treaty at will.
Shermanlee
William December Starr
sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) said:
> Note that it was by specific American agreement, not a general
> submission to a world-wide authority. Constitutionally, the
> President can abrogate _ANY_ treaty at will.
He can? That's certainly not explicitly stated in the Constitution;
are you referring to a Supreme Court ruling that said so?
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
James Nicoll
call the Jedi good people. Or especially effective peacekeepers.
lewy
> the Patrol was going to step on local troublemakers the way the
> Conservatives stepped on Riel [TAN 1]. In reality that hasn't
> happened and successful peacekeeping is barely newsworthy (Although
> you can generate any number of headlines by killing Somali youths)
> and often reviled.
>
> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
> global regime?
I seem to recall that in Keith Laumer's Retief series it was always implied
that the military arm of the Galactic Diplomatic Corps was pretty
formidable. I can't recall them ever making a direct appearance, but often
the threat of a peacekeeping mission alone was enough to bring the bad guys
to heel.
Ross TenEyck
>In article <asjhqs$5hh$1...@venus.btinternet.com>,
>Peter Morris <no...@m.please> wrote:
>>"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
>>> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
>>> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
>>> global regime?
>>The Phantom Menace, I suppose.
> Um. The Sith seem to be worse than Jedi but I wouldn't
>call the Jedi good people. Or especially effective peacekeepers.
If by "peace" one means "order in the areas of interest to
the Republic," then I think it's clear that the Jedi were
effective at it. Much too effective; the whole system,
including the Jedi, had obviously become stagnant; Palpatine's
solution may have been rather drastic, but the place was due
for a major shake-up of some kind.
--
================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ==================
Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen;
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
Markku Herd
"Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y" <lei...@pvv.ntnu.no> kirjoitti...
> Well, now... it so happens that the last time the Swedes were at
> war *was* in 1814, which does rhyme. Though they won that last
> time, what they won was Norway, which may not have been considered
> worthwhile in the long run (note how it took them less than 100
> years to let us go again, peacefully that time).
At the height of their power, it was said that the Swedes fought to
the last Finn. It seems that after losing Finland to Russia in 1809,
they soon found other things to do. *grins and waves across the gulf*
Finnish peacekeepers have also gained popularity in their areas of
operation. Perhaps it's due to the Nordic mindset of duty, sense of
justice and respectful cooperation with the locals. Ordinary people
trained by conscription, with occupation or studies waiting at home,
rather than professional soldiers.
Just guessing, tho.
- MJH
Richard Horton
wrote:
>At the height of their power, it was said that the Swedes fought to
>the last Finn. It seems that after losing Finland to Russia in 1809,
>they soon found other things to do. *grins and waves across the gulf*
>
>Finnish peacekeepers have also gained popularity in their areas of
>operation. Perhaps it's due to the Nordic mindset of duty, sense of
>justice and respectful cooperation with the locals. Ordinary people
>trained by conscription, with occupation or studies waiting at home,
>rather than professional soldiers.
And then there's the guy in Miko Waltari's _The Adventurer_. <g> (I
don't remember the Finnish name, Michael Furfoot or something?)
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.tangentonline.com)
Johnny1A
> In article <asjhqs$5hh$1...@venus.btinternet.com>,
> Peter Morris <no...@m.please> wrote:
> >
> >"James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >news:asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> >
> >> It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
> >> gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
> >> where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
> >> global regime?
> >
> >The Phantom Menace, I suppose.
> >
> Um. The Sith seem to be worse than Jedi but I wouldn't
> call the Jedi good people. Or especially effective peacekeepers.
The Jedi are clearly _very_ effective peacekeepers. This is
observable from the simple fact that the Old Republic is still
standing after thousands of years with minimal military power and a
small fleet. Recall that one Jedi Knight and his apprentice, in TPM,
were nearly able to seize the Trade Federation ship all by themselves.
As for good people...I think they're genuinely trying to be. The
entire Republic shows every sign of rotting from within, probably for
a very long time by the opening of TPM. I think the Jedi, right along
with the society they guard, are in a state of decline, and they've
gotten complacent and the moral reflexes are loggy.
Certainly, we don't see the Jedi do anything overtly _evil_ (except
for Anakin) in TPM or AotC. They often seem disconnected, but rarely
directly corrupt. They do make use of the clone troops in AotC, but
that's the invisible hand of Darth Sidious at work. Against that foe,
they're outclassed, and will be until Luke Skywalker reaches maturity.
Shermanlee
Mark Atwood
>
> That's true. But then, the United States has not been forced to
> agree to this as a condition of being allowed to surrender against a
> superior enemy. Nations that lose wars are often required to submit
> to conditions that they would normally find intolerable.
That of course, being the point.
Since we were talking about UN peace enforcers and other supernational
treaty forces, not flat out defeat at war.
If the UN and the EU wants to be able to defang the US, the feeling in
the US, very real if not all that spoken by the mainstream, is, "you
will have to defeat us first".
ObSF: "Continuing Time".
Mark Atwood
You have a different opinion of the Old Republic than I do.
Between the Old Republic and the Empire, I say, a pox on both.
The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
free trade, and his reputation amoung the
smugglers free traders to get them to trust the NR a
bit and try going legit.
Johnny1A
> "Peter Morris" <no...@m.please> writes:
> > "James Nicoll" <jdni...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:asdsb2$qa0$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> >
> > > It may be that non-fuck ups in peacekeeping don't make for
> > > gripping stories but are there any SFnal examples post-1970 or so
> > > where the peacekeepers are successful and aren't minions of an evil
> > > global regime?
> >
> > The Phantom Menace, I suppose.
>
> You have a different opinion of the Old Republic than I do.
>
> Between the Old Republic and the Empire, I say, a pox on both.
Well, the Empire never replaced the Old Republic, it _was_ the Old
Republic, the culmination of a long period of slow decline and
creeping corruption, accelerated tremendously in the final stages by
the deliberate action of Darth Sidious.
The Old Republic we see in TPM and AotC is _already_ far gone down the
decline path. I don't find it hard to believe that it was once
better.
Shermanlee
Htn963
>The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
>to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
>free trade,
So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too much of a
roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars universe featured this
couple and are they better-than-average tie-in reading?
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Mark Atwood
> Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> >The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
> >to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
> >free trade,
>
> So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too much
> of a roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars universe
> featured this couple and are they better-than-average tie-in
> reading?
The books by Timothy Zahn, and they are the only "new" Star Wars books
worth reading.
Htn963
>htn...@cs.com (Htn963) writes:
>> Mark Atwood wrote:
>>
>> >The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
>> >to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
>> >free trade,
>>
>> So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too much
>> of a roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars universe
>> featured this couple and are they better-than-average tie-in
>> reading?
>
>The books by Timothy Zahn, and they are the only "new" Star Wars books
>worth reading.
Thanks, I'll check them out. (I did read (and fairly enjoyed) several Han
Solo books after seeing _Empire Strikes Back_ when it came out, but they were
all set pre-Leia.
Johnny1A
> Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> >The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
> >to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
> >free trade,
>
> So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too much of a
> roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars universe featured this
> couple and are they better-than-average tie-in reading?
I personally recommend the first SW tie-in trilogy by Timothy Zahn:
Heir to the Empire
Dark Force Rising
The Last Command
These are easily the _best_ (IMHO, of course) of the Star Wars
fictional tie-ins, and I consider them well worth reading. Han and
Leia are married in this trilogy (set 5 years after RofJ), and Leia is
pregnant.
Also, _The Truce at Bakura_ is readable, if not as good as the above
three. It's set _immediately_ afer RotJ, and Leia and Han are not yet
married.
Now, that said...
I can't honestly recommend _any_ of the other Star Wars novels written
in recent years. The series started by Zahn in the above trilogy was
continued by other writers, supposedly in the same
chronology/universe, but the quality of the series was shredded by
truly lunatic editorial decisions and some really bad writing (even by
some otherwise good writers). It just gets worse and worse and worse,
until I couldn't even stand to keep reading them. But that doesn't
interfere with my enjoyment of the original Zahn trilogy at all.
I say 'original' because Zahn was brought back to write some more
novels set years later down the timeline, but he simply couldn't fix
the damage that had been done in the other novels, it was FUBAR. The
only way to 'fix' the damage done after his original trilogy would
have been to 'pull a Dallas' and somehow erase everything after (and
including) the Jedi Academy novels by Kevin Anderson. Since he
couldn't do that, he couldn't fix things.
Then, just to show that there's always a subbasement after you hit
bottom, they started the Yuzhaan Vong series set still later in the
timeline.
Shermanlee
Mark Atwood
> htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote in message news:<20021207224850...@mb-ct.news.cs.com>...
> > Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> I personally recommend the first SW tie-in trilogy by Timothy Zahn:
>
> Heir to the Empire
> Dark Force Rising
> The Last Command
>
> These are easily the _best_ (IMHO, of course) of the Star Wars
> fictional tie-ins, and I consider them well worth reading.
They are, IMO, in some ways, *better* than their source material.
If I ever have to serve in a SFnal military, I want to serve under
Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Htn963
>I personally recommend the first SW tie-in trilogy by Timothy Zahn:
>
>Heir to the Empire
>Dark Force Rising
>The Last Command
>
>These are easily the _best_ (IMHO, of course) of the Star Wars
>fictional tie-ins, and I consider them well worth reading. Han and
>Leia are married in this trilogy (set 5 years after RofJ), and Leia is
>pregnant.
>
>Also, _The Truce at Bakura_ is readable, if not as good as the above
>three. It's set _immediately_ afer RotJ, and Leia and Han are not yet
>married.
Cool, thanks. I lost interest in the SW saga right about when Lucas lost
his vision with _Return of the Jedi_, but it's nice to know that others have
picked up the torch...in print at least.
Johnny1A
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) writes:
> > htn...@cs.com (Htn963) wrote in message news:<20021207224850...@mb-ct.news.cs.com>...
> > > Mark Atwood wrote:
> >
> > I personally recommend the first SW tie-in trilogy by Timothy Zahn:
> >
> > Heir to the Empire
> > Dark Force Rising
> > The Last Command
> >
> > These are easily the _best_ (IMHO, of course) of the Star Wars
> > fictional tie-ins, and I consider them well worth reading.
>
> They are, IMO, in some ways, *better* than their source material.
>
> If I ever have to serve in a SFnal military, I want to serve under
> Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Well, far better Thrawn than Vader! Both in terms of personal
survival and command efficiency. For that matter, absent his nastier
superiors, serving under Pellaeon would not be too dire a fate. One
of the _very_ few things the later SW novels got plausibly right was
that the tiny remnent of the Empire, ruled by Pellaeon (in fact if not
in name) was not that bad a place.
If Pellaeon had risen to command sooner at Endor...
Shermanlee
Keith Morrison
>>I personally recommend the first SW tie-in trilogy by Timothy Zahn:
>>
>>Heir to the Empire
>>Dark Force Rising
>>The Last Command
>>
>>These are easily the _best_ (IMHO, of course) of the Star Wars
>>fictional tie-ins, and I consider them well worth reading.
>
> They are, IMO, in some ways, *better* than their source material.
>
> If I ever have to serve in a SFnal military, I want to serve under
> Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Thrawn is, IMHO, one of the greatest "normal" adversaries (as opposed
to millennia-old super-aliens and so on) ever created in SF.
Any ideas on some of the others: Smith's DuQuesne is up there, of
course.
--
Keith
Sea Wasp
DuQuesne, certainly. Thrawn I also agree on.
Thomas Nau, from Vinge's _A Deepness in the Sky_, didn't do too badly.
He just didn't realize he was up against Pham Nuwen (and some sneaky
SPOILERS) until it was a bit too late.
Yardiff Bey, from Daley's Coramonde series; one of the few bad guys who
manage to get a second chance from their demonic masters after a dismal
failure.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
http://www.wizvax.net/seawasp/index.htm
Joe Mason
>> If I ever have to serve in a SFnal military, I want to serve under
>> Grand Admiral Thrawn.
>
> Thrawn is, IMHO, one of the greatest "normal" adversaries (as opposed
> to millennia-old super-aliens and so on) ever created in SF.
>
> Any ideas on some of the others: Smith's DuQuesne is up there, of
> course.
Brandin, King of Ygrath (from _Tigana_). The Mule, if you consider him
"normal".
Joe
Mark Atwood
>
> Thrawn is, IMHO, one of the greatest "normal" adversaries (as opposed
> to millennia-old super-aliens and so on) ever created in SF.
Thrawn also obviously had read the "When I Am the Evil Overlord" list,
to the point that a specific "Thrawn entry" had to be added to the
list to describe his one boneheaded mistake that got him killed
Personally, I found that mistake to be out of character for him. I
think that Timothy Zahn had to force it in, to get Thrawn out of the
way, because otherwise Thrawn would have won, the New Republic would
have fallen, and even worse, George Lucas, Inc would have rejected the
manuscript and demanded the advance back.
Thrawn considered Vader to be criminally incompetent.
Joe Mason
> Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes:
>>
>> Thrawn is, IMHO, one of the greatest "normal" adversaries (as opposed
>> to millennia-old super-aliens and so on) ever created in SF.
>
> think that Timothy Zahn had to force it in, to get Thrawn out of the
> way, because otherwise Thrawn would have won, the New Republic would
> have fallen, and even worse, George Lucas, Inc would have rejected the
> manuscript and demanded the advance back.
Yeah, I agree. Zahn wrote himself into a corner - his villian was just
too good!
So how would you have had Thrawn die? I think a very plausible weakness
for him would be to underestimate the power of the Force, and I'd have
had C'baoth figure out some way to get around the Y'salamari, top him
and take over his command. C'baoth, of course, would make every mistake
on the Evil Overlord list and it'd be fairly easy for the Republic to
defeat him. (Not too easy, of course. Only in comparison.)
I've forgotten whether C'baoth was even still alive at the end, or if
he'd died long earlier, so this might require rewriting quite a bit of
the story.
> Thrawn considered Vader to be criminally incompetent.
Which he was, when you look at it from outside of the genre rules that
way Thrawn did. That's the main thing I disliked about the book - it
made Vader seem so much less scary.
Joe
Keith Morrison
> I've forgotten whether C'baoth was even still alive at the end, or if
> he'd died long earlier, so this might require rewriting quite a bit of
> the story.
Spoiler space:
It was simultaneous, as I recall. Luke Skywalker and Mara Jade (and
Leia, maybe, it's been years since I read the book) were facing down
C'baaoth and the Luuke clone while Thrawn was engaged in a fleet action
with the rest of Our Heroes, during which time he was stabbed in the
back (literally).
--
Keith
Keith Morrison
>>Personally, I found that mistake to be out of character for him. I
>>think that Timothy Zahn had to force it in, to get Thrawn out of the
>>way, because otherwise Thrawn would have won, the New Republic would
>>have fallen, and even worse, George Lucas, Inc would have rejected the
>>manuscript and demanded the advance back.
>
> Yeah, I agree. Zahn wrote himself into a corner - his villian was just
> too good!
>
> So how would you have had Thrawn die?
Why does he have to? All that has to happen is for him to be defeated,
not dead. He was a military genius, but sometimes even a genius has a
bad day, and given the ridiculous amount of luck on available to the
forces of the Rebellion (New Republic by this time, I guess) it wouldn't
take much of a bad day. Some fluke accident nearly gets him killed, the
death of the mad Jedi screws up his forces (as it did) and Capt Palleon
orders a retreat to parts unknown (as he did). Thrawn gets defeated,
everyone is safe, but everyone also knows that Thrawn isn't proven to
be dead and he might still be out there somewhere. The ultimate
boogey man.
--
Keith
Joe Mason
>> So how would you have had Thrawn die?
>
> Why does he have to? All that has to happen is for him to be defeated,
> not dead. He was a military genius, but sometimes even a genius has a
> bad day, and given the ridiculous amount of luck on available to the
Ok, but how would you have him be defeated?
> forces of the Rebellion (New Republic by this time, I guess) it wouldn't
> take much of a bad day. Some fluke accident nearly gets him killed, the
> death of the mad Jedi screws up his forces (as it did) and Capt Palleon
> orders a retreat to parts unknown (as he did). Thrawn gets defeated,
"Some fluke accident" isn't enough - being electrocuted by a bad wire in
his chair or something would just be too cheesy. You need *something*
to get a one-up on him, however briefly.
Joe
James Nicoll
"Oh no! I have forgotten to wear the specially insulated glove
without which I will be electrocuted as I throw this switch!"
(end of the first appearance of Major Disaster in Green
Lantern, roughly)
Johnny1A
Thrawn was half-right about Vader's incompetence. From a standpoint
of purely military effectiveness, he's right. The murderous savagery
of Vader is certainly counterproductive. Further, Vader is not by any
means a great strategist or tactician.
OTOH, Vader was perpetually conflicted. Anakin Skywalker wasn't dead
within him, and that tended to throw him off. Had he been using his
power over the Dark Side with complete dedication, odds are he'd have
wiped the Rebellion long before Luke reached maturity. You don't have
to be a Thrawn-level military genius when you can read your enemy's
mind and foresee his actions ahead of time by precognition. Vader was
scary enough. It's just that he was just as big a threat to himself
as he was his opponents.
Which might, in fact, be just what Palpatine wanted, for his own
reasons.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> > Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes:
> >>
> >> Thrawn is, IMHO, one of the greatest "normal" adversaries (as opposed
> >> to millennia-old super-aliens and so on) ever created in SF.
> >
> > Personally, I found that mistake to be out of character for him. I
> > think that Timothy Zahn had to force it in, to get Thrawn out of the
> > way, because otherwise Thrawn would have won, the New Republic would
> > have fallen, and even worse, George Lucas, Inc would have rejected the
> > manuscript and demanded the advance back.
>
> Yeah, I agree. Zahn wrote himself into a corner - his villian was just
> too good!
>
> So how would you have had Thrawn die? I think a very plausible weakness
> for him would be to underestimate the power of the Force,
That _is_ what got him, if you read the books closely. The one error
(as opposed to mistake, see Thrawn's own comments for the difference)
that Thrawn kept making was to try to deal with the Force the way he
would any other purely physical phenomenon. He did well when dealing
with it's over manifestations, poorly with the subtle ones. Though
even there, he consistently tended to underestimate how dangerous Luke
Skywalker was in fight. He really thought the Noghri should be able
to capture him.
It was Leia who tracked down the Noghri, turned them, and set in
motion the sequence of events the brought down Thrawn, and she herself
was fairly sure she was following a hint from the Force in doing it.
The Force has as subtle side, in the odd bits of luck Jedi get,
hunches, things like that, and Thrawn didn't do as well with those.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> Keith Morrison <kei...@polarnet.ca> writes:
> >
> > Thrawn is, IMHO, one of the greatest "normal" adversaries (as opposed
> > to millennia-old super-aliens and so on) ever created in SF.
>
> Thrawn also obviously had read the "When I Am the Evil Overlord" list,
> to the point that a specific "Thrawn entry" had to be added to the
> list to describe his one boneheaded mistake that got him killed
>
> Personally, I found that mistake to be out of character for him. I
> think that Timothy Zahn had to force it in, to get Thrawn out of the
> way, because otherwise Thrawn would have won, the New Republic would
> have fallen, and even worse, George Lucas, Inc would have rejected the
> manuscript and demanded the advance back.
>
> Thrawn considered Vader to be criminally incompetent.
Actually, oddly enough, it _was_ in character for him. He showed a
tendency to regard the Noghri as something of a 'given' or a cipher in
his plans from the opening scenes. He made the error of sending
Noghri after Jedi more than once, something he almost never did
otherwise.
One might wonder about the source of this odd blind spot.
Shermanlee
Tapio Erola
Rogue Squadron scoring 1 in 100,000 hit on _Chimaera_ after someone
misunderstood the (analyzed and out-planned) New Republic battle plan?
--
Tapio Erola (t...@tols17.oulu.fi) No mail to t...@rak061.oulu.fi please!
"I hope I die before I get old"
--The Who, My Generation
Taki Kogoma
to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>Mark Atwood wrote:
>>The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
>>to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
>>free trade,
>
> So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too much of a
>roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars universe featured this
>couple and are they better-than-average tie-in reading?
The book most involved with the Solo-Organa coutrship is _The
Coutrship of Princcess Leia_. (Duh!) I never got around to reading it,
but ISTR the buzz on rec.arts.sf.starwars when it was published was
generally favorable.
By the time of the Thrawn Trilogy, the two have been married for a
while and Leia is pregnant with twins.
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
quirk @ swcp.com | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
Htn963
>On 08 Dec 2002 03:48:50 GMT, did htn...@cs.com (Htn963),
>to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>>Mark Atwood wrote:
>>>The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
>>>to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
>>>free trade,
>>
>> So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too much of
>a
>>roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars universe featured
>this
>>couple and are they better-than-average tie-in reading?
>
>The book most involved with the Solo-Organa coutrship is _The
>Coutrship of Princcess Leia_. (Duh!)
Hmm, I'm wincing at this title, since I consider the courtship to be a done
deal after _Empire_.
> I never got around to reading it,
>but ISTR the buzz on rec.arts.sf.starwars when it was published was
>generally favorable.
Ok, thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Time for a _Star Wars_ binge after 20
years!
Mark Blunden
> Taki Kogoma wrote:
>
>> On 08 Dec 2002 03:48:50 GMT, did htn...@cs.com (Htn963),
>> to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
>>> Mark Atwood wrote:
>>>> The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is
>>>> able to use his influence on his wife and in the government to
>>>> argue for free trade,
>>>
>>> So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too
>>> much of a roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars
>>> universe featured this couple and are they better-than-average
>>> tie-in reading?
>>
>> The book most involved with the Solo-Organa coutrship is _The
>> Coutrship of Princcess Leia_. (Duh!)
>
> Hmm, I'm wincing at this title, since I consider the courtship to
> be a done deal after _Empire_.
IIRC Leia gets cold feet. There's a jungle planet and Rancor-riding witches
involved, as I recall, but it's been awhile.
--
Mark.
* Right now, I need aphorisms like I need holes in my heads
Sea Wasp
> Actually, oddly enough, it _was_ in character for him. He showed a
> tendency to regard the Noghri as something of a 'given' or a cipher in
> his plans from the opening scenes. He made the error of sending
> Noghri after Jedi more than once, something he almost never did
> otherwise.
>
> One might wonder about the source of this odd blind spot.
The Emperor would be my guess. He would have wanted a way to remove
Thrawn if Thrawn ever became a Problem.
I used Thrawn as an opponent in a Star Wars campaign I ran. Scary man.
Htn963
Yes, and as I guessed, after checking Amazon info, there's a rival. If
you think of it as the rival's courtship, then the title is much less silly.
But some reviews state the authors took great liberties with the personality of
Solo and Leia here -- usually the kiss of death for me for any fanfic or tie-in
material -- so I'll probably give this a pass.
Johnny1A
> Taki Kogoma wrote:
>
> >On 08 Dec 2002 03:48:50 GMT, did htn...@cs.com (Htn963),
> >to rec.arts.sf.written decree...
> >>Mark Atwood wrote:
> >>>The only thing the New Republic has going for it was that Han is able
> >>>to use his influence on his wife and in the government to argue for
> >>>free trade,
> >>
> >> So Solo did wed Princess Leia? I would have thought he was too much of
> a
> >>roamer to settle down. Which book(s) in the Star Wars universe featured
> this
> >>couple and are they better-than-average tie-in reading?
> >
> >The book most involved with the Solo-Organa coutrship is _The
> >Coutrship of Princcess Leia_. (Duh!)
>
> Hmm, I'm wincing at this title, since I consider the courtship to be a done
> deal after _Empire_.
>
> > I never got around to reading it,
> >but ISTR the buzz on rec.arts.sf.starwars when it was published was
> >generally favorable.
>
> Ok, thanks, I'll keep it in mind. Time for a _Star Wars_ binge after 20
> years!
Just remember, if you binge on the new novels after Zahn, my personal
recommendation is to have the movies handy on DVD or tape to remind
yourself of them before the damage was done.
Especially after you meet Qui Xux and Admiral Daala and Callista
Craycomputer.
Shermanlee
Keith Morrison
>>forces of the Rebellion (New Republic by this time, I guess) it wouldn't
>>take much of a bad day. Some fluke accident nearly gets him killed, the
>>death of the mad Jedi screws up his forces (as it did) and Capt Palleon
>>orders a retreat to parts unknown (as he did). Thrawn gets defeated,
>
> "Some fluke accident" isn't enough - being electrocuted by a bad wire in
> his chair or something would just be too cheesy. You need *something*
> to get a one-up on him, however briefly.
Wedge Antilles scores the 1 in a thousand shot that takes down the
Star Destroyer's shields just when the pirates under Talon Karrde
show up and take advantage of the weakness to cripple the ship?
(It happens. Ask Admiral Nagumo and the Japanese carriers at
Midway.)
Or the Noghri attack him but, reading the EO's list, he prepared
for betrayal and was only seriously wounded but in no condition
to continue a battle.
--
Keith
Htn963
>Just remember, if you binge on the new novels after Zahn, my personal
>recommendation is to have the movies handy on DVD or tape to remind
>yourself of them before the damage was done.
No worries, I'm discriminating even when I binge. (And I never bought the
DVD's for keeps but I must have seen TESB over 10 times: still one of my top 3
favorite movies of all time.)
>Especially after you meet Qui Xux and Admiral Daala and Callista
>Craycomputer.
These names are for real? Qui Xux: We Sucks.
SkyeFire
writes:
>
>If I ever have to serve in a SFnal military, I want to serve under
>Grand Admiral Thrawn.
>
Heh heh heh. www.eyrie-productions.com -- go the the UF link. Thrawn's a
secondary character, alas (shows up best in the "Twighlight" stories of the
"Future Imperfect" arc), but he's a good guy. And fully as good as Zahn wrote
him.
(not to mention Galactic Champion or something at the galaxy-spanning
online Quake/Doom/something game...)
SkyeFire
sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) writes:
>
>Actually, oddly enough, it _was_ in character for him. He showed a
>tendency to regard the Noghri as something of a 'given' or a cipher in
>his plans from the opening scenes. He made the error of sending
>Noghri after Jedi more than once, something he almost never did
>otherwise.
>
>One might wonder about the source of this odd blind spot.
The Noghri were, however, still his best tool for that kind of work --
Thrawn could keep using them until the odds fell his way.
Now that I think of it, though, that *is* one major blind spot Thrawn has
-- I don't recall that we *ever* saw him have a strategy "tree" to handle any
defeats or unexpected setbacks. He seemed to count on his plans succeeding
*exactly* as he intended. True, his plans were quite robust, but he never went
for the kind of in-depth paranoia that professional military planners usually
go for. Despite being a sort of realtime version of Hari Seldon, you'd still
think that someone as experienced as Thrawn would plan better for the
inevitable Murhpy Factor.
SkyeFire
writes:
>
>Thrawn also obviously had read the "When I Am the Evil Overlord" list,
>to the point that a specific "Thrawn entry" had to be added to the
>list to describe his one boneheaded mistake that got him killed
>
>Personally, I found that mistake to be out of character for him. I
>think that Timothy Zahn had to force it in, to get Thrawn out of the
>way, because otherwise Thrawn would have won, the New Republic would
>have fallen, and even worse, George Lucas, Inc would have rejected the
>manuscript and demanded the advance back.
But *nobody's* perfect -- I mean, people still bitch about the
"omnicompetent" Jack Ryan, who displayed serious (and sometimes near-fatal)
flaws in *all* his appearances (well, pre-Executive Orders, at least), but then
expect Thrawn to be somehow without *any* fatal flaw whatsoever?
Inconsistent...
Besides, what killed Thrawn was the one critical piece of data that he did
not only lack, but *could not possibly* have known -- a secret known only to
Luke, Leia, *maybe* Han and Chewie, and a couple of dead Jedi. That's
plausible -- Thrawn's great weapon was knowing his enemies better than they did
themselves, but he still had to have *something* to work from. The connection
that turned the Nohgri against him was so unkown that even *his* incredible
intuitive powers couldn't have made that connection.
Ike Thieme
'The Admiral's having a heart attack!' or an aneurism, or whatever.
Great leaders dying of mortal failings of the flesh have ample historic
precedent, but I suppose one could argue the plausibility given Magic
Medical Tech.
Jordan179
> I can't help but suspect Certain Elements who would be reliably
> unhappy with being mind read by UN telepaths would be even less happy to
> know the telepath in question is Jewish.
I know you're thinking of the American right-wing militias, but your
statement would also apply in spades to virtually all of the Islamic
world, especially the Arabs, who tend to be even MORE anti-Semitic
than are the American fringe right.
Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
Thomas Yan
skye...@aol.com (SkyeFire) writes:
> In article <b3030854.02120...@posting.google.com>,
> sherm...@hotmail.com (Johnny1A) writes:
>
>>
>>Actually, oddly enough, it _was_ in character for him. He showed a
>>tendency to regard the Noghri as something of a 'given' or a cipher in
>>his plans from the opening scenes. He made the error of sending
>>Noghri after Jedi more than once, something he almost never did
>>otherwise.
>>
>>One might wonder about the source of this odd blind spot.
>
> The Noghri were, however, still his best tool for that kind of work --
> Thrawn could keep using them until the odds fell his way.
> Now that I think of it, though, that *is* one major blind spot Thrawn has
> -- I don't recall that we *ever* saw him have a strategy "tree" to handle any
> defeats or unexpected setbacks.
How are you defining those terms? Does not capturing Luke count as
defeats or unexpected setbacks?
> He seemed to count on his plans succeeding *exactly* as he intended.
> True, his plans were quite robust, but he never went for the kind of
> in-depth paranoia that professional military planners usually go
> for. Despite being a sort of realtime version of Hari Seldon, you'd
> still think that someone as experienced as Thrawn would plan better
> for the inevitable Murhpy Factor.
Hm. Did we know/see enough of his plans to conclude he didn't have
backup plans? Most of the time, we just see him succeed, so there was
no opportunity to see him switch gears.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Now that I think of it, though, that *is* one major blind spot Thrawn has
> -- I don't recall that we *ever* saw him have a strategy "tree" to handle any
> defeats or unexpected setbacks. He seemed to count on his plans succeeding
> *exactly* as he intended.
Isn't this a familiar pattern with Dark Jedi and their
associates, however? Almost all of them seem to think linearly and have
few if any fallback plans. Tarkin's "This had better work, Vader (my
ass is on the line, I don't have any fallback plan)" seems to be
representative of this.
I suspect many Imperial types (having not read the Thrawn
series, I'm not in a strong position to comment on it) adopted as their
example Palpitane, who comes from the Miles Vorkosigan school of
strategy: don't allow for a single alternative that permits defeat; all
roads lead to (my) victory. Few of them seem to be quite so clever as
Palpitane, who had a gift of prophecy to guide him. It was only Luke,
who was as hidden from his sight as Leto Atreidies III was from the Bene
Gesserit, who was able to deceive him in the end.
Elf
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
[snip]
> Which might, in fact, be just what Palpatine wanted, for his own
> reasons.
What, to die in front of luke?
http://www.brunching.com/lukeside.html
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"People in masks can't be trusted." | stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
-Fezzik (_The Princess Bride_) | Stewart Stremler
Keith Morrison
> Besides, what killed Thrawn was the one critical piece of data that he did
> not only lack, but *could not possibly* have known -- a secret known only to
> Luke, Leia, *maybe* Han and Chewie, and a couple of dead Jedi. That's
> plausible -- Thrawn's great weapon was knowing his enemies better than they did
> themselves, but he still had to have *something* to work from. The connection
> that turned the Nohgri against him was so unkown that even *his* incredible
> intuitive powers couldn't have made that connection.
And it depended on a great deal of luck. If the ambush goes as planned,
odds are Leia is dead before the Noghri make the connection. Even if
they do make the link afterwards, it's too late and there's no one to
go the the Noghri homeworld and reveal the secret there, either.
The fact that this was being set up earlier than the final book seems
to show that the way Thrawn was defeated wasn't just a leap out of a
painted-in corner, but something planned. The best laid plans can't
anticipate everything, in other words.
The other failure, the failure of Mara Jade to kill Luke, was also
something he couldn't anticipate. How could he have known that his
personal Jedi would do the one thing, the only thing, that would allow
Mara to finally get out of the programming Palpatine had forced on her
and aid Luke and Leia in the destruction of his plans?
--
Keith
David Cowie
> begin quoting Johnny1A <sherm...@hotmail.com> :
^^
Does MS Outlook Express still have the "two spaces" bug?
--
David Cowie david_cowie at lineone dot net
So high, so low, so many things to know.
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 00:01:11 +0000, stremle wrote:
>> begin quoting Johnny1A <sherm...@hotmail.com> :
> ^^
> Does MS Outlook Express still have the "two spaces" bug?
Dunno. But I still get email from people telling me that I should
not post or email attachments, but flat ASCII text instead.
--
--Stewart Stremler----------------...@rohan.sdsu.edu--
....but I prefer to think control of a market leads to complacency.
--Rob Nicholson (December 1999)
Johnny1A
It _might_ be that up until the Emperor's death, he hadn't had much
experience with the Murphy Factor. After all, in the Star Wars
universe, luck is just the Force at work, for you or against you. As
long as nobody existed who provide a rival focus for the Force, luck
tended to favor Palpatine's minions.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> Besides, what killed Thrawn was the one critical piece of data that he did
> not only lack, but *could not possibly* have known -- a secret known only to
> Luke, Leia, *maybe* Han and Chewie, and a couple of dead Jedi. That's
> plausible -- Thrawn's great weapon was knowing his enemies better than they did
> themselves, but he still had to have *something* to work from. The connection
> that turned the Nohgri against him was so unkown that even *his* incredible
> intuitive powers couldn't have made that connection.
Thrawn kept underestimating the subtle side of the Force, as I've
commented.
For example, at one point Luke Skywalker managed to evade a trap
Thrawn had set by the skin of his teeth and a bit of technical
cleverness. Thrawn realized something Luke didn't, though: the
maneuver he had used would damage the faster than light drive of his
X-wing fighter, leaving him stranded in interstellar space.
Recognizing that, Thrawn was in no hurry to pursue. After all, what
were the odds of somebody just stumbling across Luke in a one-man
starship adrift light-years from the nearest star?
Thrawn overlooked 2 possibilities:
1. Luke is telepathic, and might could reach Leia Organa-Solo to call
for help. In fact, he very nearly did manage just this, but she was
just a shade too many light-centuries distant. She got 'something',
but didn't comprehend it.
2. Failing that, of course, somebody just stumbled across Luke. :)
Of course, it wasn't _really_ a coincidence, Mara Jade was that
someone, and luck and randon chance do weird things around Jedi
anyway. Thrawn tended to forget that, or else he never quite realized
it in its full implications.
For that matter, he tended to underestimate how dangerous C'Baoth was,
too. Oddly enough, in this matter Pellaeon had a better grasp of the
threat than Thrawn did.
No, Thrawn was not perfect by any means.
Shermanlee
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> begin quoting Johnny1A <sherm...@hotmail.com> :
> [snip]
> > Which might, in fact, be just what Palpatine wanted, for his own
> > reasons.
>
> What, to die in front of luke?
>
> http://www.brunching.com/lukeside.html
LOL!
No, seriously, it would be in Palpatine's interest to keep Vader from
becoming _too_ focused and determined, since the nature of the Dark
Side is self-interest. If he can keep Vader a threat to Vader, he
remains somewhat useful while not offering too big a threat to the
Emperor himself.
For that matter, I don't believe for a second that Palpatine wanted
the Alliance destroyed, at least not before the Battle of Endor. The
Rebels were very _useful_ to Palpatine, as an excuse for an endless,
expensive military build-up,
as a public reason to suspend the elected Senate 'for the duration of
the current emergency' (see ANH), etc. To allow Vader to exterminate
them would be counterproductive, from Palpatine's POV. Given his
Force-power and control of the Republican/Imperial government, they
aren't that big a threat to him anyway.
Luke's presence among them, though, changes the equation, making it at
least theoretically possible that the Rebels could become a genuine
threat. Thus the trap set at Endor, which was primarily a trap for
Luke, and secondarily Palpatine's plan to wipe out the Rebellion as a
serious force.
Shermanlee
Johnny1A
> Johnny1A wrote:
>
>
> >Especially after you meet Qui Xux and Admiral Daala and Callista
> >Craycomputer.
>
> These names are for real? Qui Xux: We Sucks.
The first two names are actually used. The third is half-actual, the
'craycomputer' surname is a joke that loathing SW fans appended to a
character in one of the later novels, well past the start of the
degeneration.
Qui Xux is a scientist who designs planet-killer weapons with the
intention of making the Galaxy a better place.
Admiral Daala might best be regarded the 'Anti-Thrawn'.
Callista...well, enough said about Callista.
Shermanlee
David Cowie
>> Does MS Outlook Express still have the "two spaces" bug?
>
> Dunno. But I still get email from people telling me that I should
> not post or email attachments, but flat ASCII text instead.
Do you tell them to get a proper newsreader that doesn't have wierd bugs
in it?
stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu
>>> Does MS Outlook Express still have the "two spaces" bug?
>>
>> Dunno. But I still get email from people telling me that I should
>> not post or email attachments, but flat ASCII text instead.
>
> Do you tell them to get a proper newsreader that doesn't have wierd bugs
> in it?
Well, yeah, but the typical response is "I can't read your attachment!"
--
"Why yesh offisher I've been drinking but thatsh wash owersh ago."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart John Stremler stre...@rohan.sdsu.edu