Rule of One vs. Rule of Two

well, the point is, they are in Seoul, and would be wiped out in the first few minutes. I don't know why we even keep them THERE. we would be much smarter to put them somewhere out of the reach of Kim Jong Il's artillery.

I really don't think 60K troops would be wiped out within minutes. Not even days.

Depends on their defensive position and what support the SK Army could provide. Those communists tend to favor human wave attacks, and eventually they would run out of ammo........ =-/

artillery bombardment is the problem. Read the logistics of a NK bombardment of Seoul, its really scary.

Artillery sucks for killing people, though. It's a morale killer/building muncher. Artillery isn't really good for precise strikes.

really good for wiping out concentrated groups of people. Like say, a city with over 13 million people in it.

60,000 thousand U.S. troops is a small price to pay for the elimination of all those StarCraft clans.

I think Vegas should start taking bets on which country would disappear first; NK or Iran?

Rule of two by far is better

I'd honestly call Naga Sadow's Sith Empire as weaker than the One Sith order, given that their Empire was smaller and they spent almost as much time fighting each other as they did anything else. Shoot, Sadow was engaged in a civil war when the Republic first arrived and was ultimately assured defeat by his rival... all in SPITE of warnings from Sith that had died to remain unified.

Exar Kun's Sith and Darth Revan and Darth Malak's Sith suffered from the problem that they were based solely around the strengths of the Sith Lord(s)... Exar Kun was powerful (and one of the few pre-Rule of Two Sith that could defeat Rule of Two Sith) but once Ulic-Qel-Droma lost his powers and betrayed Exar Kun, he was alone and couldn't have beat all of the Republic's forces... and despite being able to defeat Luke Skywalker as a ghost... he's defeated by Luke's students coming together in united opposition... which seems almost like an interesting training exercise... And when Malak betrayed Revan, while Malak remained a threat, his empire fell apart rather quickly when Revan returned to the light side of the Force.
The only one that seemed to have real strength was Vitiate's Empire given that it learned from Sadow's failings, and built a military machine that essentially defeated the Jedi following the Battle of Coruscant.

Also none ever respected the Rule of Two!!!

The Rule of Two was more like a façade,Bane himself defied it to train Darth Cognus. Plagueis defied it to have Maul,Sidious defied it to have Lumyia or Starkiller(short time)

Rule of Two was brought only to wipe out Skere Kaan's Brotherhood of Darkness.

Originally posted by Freedon Nadd
Also none ever respected the Rule of Two!!!

The Rule of Two was more like a façade,Bane himself defied it to train Darth Cognus. Plagueis defied it to have Maul,Sidious defied it to have Lumyia or Starkiller(short time)

Rule of Two was brought only to wipe out Skere Kaan's Brotherhood of Darkness.

I think the crux of the Rule of Two was at the end of each clash, the power should be in the hands of two. Starting to train someone on the side is ok *if* you plan on having both candidates fight it out to bring things back in line, or if you plan on killing the disappointment before you get to a point where there's three fully-trained sith around.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
I would join if NK attacked SK as well. But not because that war would be worth fighting for. Rather, we would win so incredibly easily that my life wouldn't be in any real danger the majority of the time.

Revan RUle of Two> Rule of one> Bane rule of Two > Revan Rules of Two...

That made absolutely no sense.

Rule of two

Your moms a droid

Each Rule is made for specific circumstances.

Like, 'what Jedi order are you facing at the time?'. If any!

The Sith Empire was made when there *were* no Jedi to face. Sith infighting wasn't a problem because Sith would always emerge on top. No big deal.

The Rule of Two was made when the Jedi had so much experience kicking Jedi butt in war that trying to take them on order-to-order was futile.

The Rule of One was made when the Jedi were used to taking on small groups of high level sith, and had Skywalkers to give them an edge, so an order was needed.

Bane's order produced the best Sith in Galactic history, of all time of you include the fact Lumiya modeled her order after Bane's as we'll

Krayt himself is among the most powerful Sith, but his lackeys pale in comparison to the likes or Plagueis, Tenebrous, and Sidious

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That made absolutely no sense.

It depend of the context..
Revan rule of two was perfect tolead an empire. And having sith accolytes.
The construction of his own empire was built on the loyauty to Revan... It was well organize and safe from any betrayal except one... : His own apprentice. That's why Revan fall....
But It could have produce the greatest leader in the history...

Rule of One is good but it lead the power to only one person... When you have many powerfull Dark Jedis (with the title of Sith lord but still they are Dark Jedi for the most part...) it became anarchy and chaos for the one throne it lead civil war.. Remember Kreia in KotOR II when she talk about sith past...

Or in the opposite case there is no successor for the throne....

Rule of Two is perfect to stay in the Dark...

There is some sith who follow Revan rules of Twobut they didn't change the face of galaxy they are near featless...