"Without S31's actions, Odo's attempt at the end would have amounted to nothing.
By praising Odo's actions as 'the way to do it' you indirectly praise S31's actions as 'the way to do it'. Denying this doesn't change it."
That's a bad premise. That's like saying the only way someone can be seen as to be a good guy is if there are people acting terribly, and therefore we should thank the horrible people for making us look good.
It's saying Odo's good deed would have achieved nothing - without S31; that it was not the way to end the war - without S31.
It's not generalising anything - AKA your "only way
someone can be seen as to be a good guy" is unjustified.
It doesn't say Odo's not a good guy; merely saying that he would not have been a successful good guy without S31; as such, it's a poor argument for the ideas you - and DavidGutierrez - support.
It's saying that the only way Odo's action could support your position is if one somehow 'forgot' about S31's contribution.
"So, you essentially want children's tales, to tell you cushy facts that blatantly contradict reality, just because reality is too inconvenient for your ivory tower, cushy philosophying?
BTW that was the greatest weakness for TNG. Annoying, when it was obvious that, from a real world perspective, the 'correct' choice was noting of the sort; in most other circumstances where it occured, it merely diluted the show with simplistic/unrealistic black/white with nothing in between - it was just like watching a cartoon for 6 years old."
Star Trek is beyond the current world, it's not likely that the morality and ethics of people in that society would be the same as you would find today. Just like the morality and ethics of our world are much different then the 1700s.
It's not about society, it's about the objective universe, which won't change regardless of time, society or what one would want.
Game theory - the best strategy for action in games such as 'the prisoner's dilemma'? It's NOT being generous and compassionate all the time; indeed, if you try this, you will inevitably loose.
Not that one has to recourse to game theory. Look at history. You think being compassionate all the time translates into you surviving?
And it's not sugarcoating something to look for the best in people. Take "In the Pale Moonlight" for instance. While it was great dramatically, and it was interesting to see a different take on a problem it just didn't feel like Star Trek.
Why couldn't they have come together to fight against a common enemy without duplicity. It's just a simple matter of the writer's choosing which choice is the right choice.
As said - it doesn't feel like star trek because the star trek you look for cheats to always put forward situations that are black/white.
This happens seldom in the real world, during war.
How many times have cold warriors - or enemies - liked each other in history?