It amazes me how all the posters saw the same episode and took so many different opinions away from it.
Time for mine.
Kirk was not so much angry at them preventing the war as they were interfering with his ability to accomplish his mission. He didn't want the war, but his mission was to win
it. It could not be prevented, as when an enemy sends a fleet of warships into your space and attacks your ships and colonies, it's war. Unless you roll over and surrender and learn to speak Klingonese.
There's only one thing worse than a war, losing a war, and the Klingons aren't the type to do that whole "we'll help you rebuild" thing after they've won.
James T. Vader wrote:
So what's everyone's opinon of miltary gunho conservative war fighting savage Kirk in Errand of Mercy? Man seems determined to fight a war no matter what the cost.
What was Gene thinking?
What are you trying to say? Kirk was not gung
ho at all, as others have pointed out.
How can you tell if he's conservative, politics are not mentioned, unless democracy is "conservative" compared to the Klingon dictatorship.
Put phasers on stun is savage? They killed no one. (on an aside, ever wonder when they stun someone and then they fall down a flight of stone steps? Oh, he'll be alright, he's just stunned. Reminds me of what happend to Ricardo Montalbaun in the end of The Naked Gun)
And again, he's determined to win, not fight. If he could win by talking, he would, but two sentences into his speech the Klingons would shoot him. This is one of Kirk's most defining characteristics, the need to triumph, it's very in character and they are not "inconsistent" with that.
Gene Roddenberry or Gene Coon?