View Single Post
Old February 28 2013, 03:56 AM   #102
Locutus of Bored
Full Metal Bat'leth
 
Locutus of Bored's Avatar
 
Location: Huntington Beach, California
Re: Star Trek: INS- Son'a/Dominion Question

sonak wrote: View Post
If, like others here, your position is that the planet is not in Federation space, then you've got a bigger issue than just eminent domain not applying-that means that the Federation has no obligation to protect them, which means, that as a "civilization" of 600 pacifists, they'd be doomed pretty shortly. Also, it means that Picard technically fought a civil war on behalf of the Baku in violation of the PD, though because of Dougherty already involving the UFP, it may be somewhat negated.
It's negated by the fact that the Son'a didn't disclose that they and the Bak'u were the same species until Picard and Co. were already insurrectin' and it was a moot point. Had they mentioned that before, it would have been an internal matter and the Federation should not be involved under the terms of the PD, but since it looked like a hostile technologically advanced species invading a helpless non-technological species from Picard's perspective (though one familiar with warp and other advanced tech, thus satisfying the other PD concern as well), he was well within his rights to act on their behalf since they invited him to stay and help them reach the caves.

As for the Iraq war comparison, I don't see it. Again, you can't compare the magic particles to oil or something.
Christ almighty. You clearly didn't even read what I wrote before leaping in with a reply and guessing at what my point was. Not once did I compare the metaphasic particles to oil. In fact, I didn't even mention oil, because that was not the primary motive behind the invasion of Iraq from PNAC's perspective; spreading "American values" and "pacifying" the Middle East one nation at a time was.

I laid out point for point where the comparison between Iraq and the Bak'u situation was, and lest you forget, YOU were the one asking why people were comparing your stance to neo-con principles, which is why I responded by comparing it to the most recent neo-con motivated conflict.

The closest analogy I and others keep using is a cure for cancer. Again, if you think that an issue of sovereignty should stop the international community from removing a small village if it meant getting a cure for cancer, then you're putting property or land rights above the greater common welfare. This is especially silly when you consider how often boundaries and borders have been redrawn in history.
Of course boundaries and borders have been redrawn throughout history, but we (and the Federation even more so) are supposed to evolve beyond the need to expand through conflict and subjugation of minorities and vastly outnumbered and outgunned villagers. You can expand through peaceful means as well, such as the European Union, and that's the model one should aspire to, not forcibly relocating people from their homeworld like a thief in the night and condemning them to an earlier death.

Or, you can work with the villagers to find a compromise that benefits both parties, such as the one I propose about allowing settlers on other parts of the planet for rehabilitation as long as they follow the Bak'u rules.

You're advocating that the strong should conquer the weak and take their things, leaving them nothing. It's an inherently amoral concept, no matter how much you try and rationalize it and state that it's done with the best of intentions.

I could see the comparison if the goal was conquering the Baku to change their government and take them over. But that's clearly not the issue here.
You don't think drastically shortening the lifespans of a nigh immortal society where people apprentice for decades under an expert before taking over the job themselves will "change their government" and society?
Locutus of Bored is offline   Reply With Quote