View Single Post
Old January 9 2012, 04:40 AM   #31
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
3.>With the Ba'ku the orders were based on a false assumption. Once it became known that the Sona and Ba'ku where the same race. the Prime Directive kicked in. i.e Starfleet officers should take all steps to avoid becoming invovled in the internal affairs of other races.
What "false assumption? Anyone on the surface of the planet would be killed when the Federation and the Sona harvested the particles in the rings. Whether the Baku and Sona have (or don't have) "internal affairs" doesn't change that fact. The Baku had to leave. Yes, the Federation should have initially asked them to go under their own power, but they did have to go.

Hard to see how the Prime Directive would "kick in." Once it is realized that the Baku are both refuges and a warp capable culture, the Prime Directive is irrelavant. And once the Baku and the Sona are seen as one people, that just means that the Baku have somewhere to relocate to (a Sona planet), off of the Federation planet that they reside upon.

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Or do you in general force people to do your bidding when you think you know what's best for them?
If the Baku remained on the surface, the harvesting of the particles would have killed them. If a police officer encounters a person in a building about to be demolished, if a firefighter encounters a person in a building that is burning, they don't ask that persons permission before removing them.

Relocating the Baku was for their safety.

And if the Federation Council, after their review, didn't continue the process of harvesting the rings particle (after finally removing the Baku), how many of them would end up in prison?

Certainly after the general public found out that the Council deigned the Federation of the health advantages of the particles, just so that a small number of pretty people could live undisturbed in a single small valley, the majority of the Council would be remove from positions of power.

You know that "never ask when you can take" is a Ferengi and not a Federation rule, do you?
What do you mean "take?" It was a Federation planet and they were Federation particles. Who were they supposed to have asked?

BillJ wrote: View Post
If the S'ona simply wanted to exterminate the Ba'ku ...
The thing is, they didn't. The Sona went out of their way through the majority of the story to prevent harming the Baku.


The planet lies in Federation territory. Doesn't imply that they have supreme power over it and its inhabitants. Actually the UFP has no power over Ba'ku, the planet as well as the people, at all. It is their duty to leave them alone, not mess with them, not violate them, not steal from them, not kidnap them. I grow really tried of having to point out that all these things are serious crimes.

Why do you defend the So'na? They stabbed the Federation in the back and have been eager to kill the Ba'ku once the Feds have not been looking ... and they would certainly not have shared the medical benefits of the particles with anybody.
If you wanna defend such wickedness, go ahead, but don't expect it to be the basis for a serious discussion. I doubt you'd want to talk with me if I claimed that Nero had been such a lovely fellow.



BillJ wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post

You can defend Dougherty and the So'na all you like and imagine a grand-scale invasion of the Federation to rationalize it, Picard did the right thing.
INS is not a complicated movie where it is unclear who is right and who is wrong (the Heart of Darkness version would have been more interesting precisely because it wouldn't have been a straightforward moral tale), it is a simply movie like ST09. Not as bad but still as simple.
The only way you can see Insurrection as a straight forward moral tale is if you turn your brain completely off.
It was designed to be nothing else. Your large scale intergalactic war about the planet is a lovely idea but it is not part of the movie. I like loose readings of a text but not when they claim to be more and disavow that they are just loose readings.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote