The Typhon Pact

[Rush Limborg]

^That is kinda iffy...

Some might say that, as the people were all but begging for American support....

[Sci]

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

^That is kinda iffy...

Some might say that, as the people were all but begging for American support....

They were not. There may have been people on the streets asking for U.S. help, but neither Mousavi nor his lieutenants, nor any of the leaders of the demonstrators, requested U.S. aid.

And, as I said, helping them would have only helped Ahmadinejad by making politically neutral or undecided Iranians think Mousavi is an American puppet and that the U.S. was trying to control their country again. It would have completely backfired had we gotten involved.

[Rush Limborg]

So...despite Mamoud's obvious madness...they would take his side against that of potential freedom...and peace?

Guy must be quite a charmer.

[Sci]

Rush Limborg wrote:

---

So...despite Mamoud's obvious madness...

To us, it seems madness. To many Iranians, on the other hand, he may seem either to be a strong leader seeking to enhance Iran's power on the world stage (in which case he would hardly be the first head of government to gain support from appeals to imperial ambitions; we Americans have done the same thing), or to be a needlessly belligerent leader who hurts Iran but is not necessarily insane. Indeed, it would seem that many Mousavi supporters view Ahmadinejad in much the same light that many American liberals viewed George W. Bush: Not insane, but needlessly belligerent and undiplomatic, and a violator of constitutional rights.

(I am not going to argue about the accuracy of the views held by American liberals about Bush -- I state that merely to illustrate a parallel between how two factions in two societies view two leaders.)

they would take his side against that of potential freedom...and peace?

Yes. History has shown time and again that if they feel like an outsider is dominating them, most societies will prefer a domestic bastard to a foreign saint. They value Iranian sovereignty above Iranian liberal democracy; they would prefer Ahmadinejad, warts and all, to someone they perceive as an American puppet. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."

That's why it was important that the U.S. not intervene on Mousavi's side. Mousavi needs to come to power, but he needs to come to power through purely Iranian efforts, or else the Iranian populace will reject him.

[Cicero]

Christopher wrote:

---

It would be even more foolish to cause incidents if they are a threat, because it's just going to make them hate and fear you even more than they do already. History shows that trying to force or manipulate other countries into bowing to your will generally creates more problems than it solves.

Does it? Rome and other great empires (imperial and republican) successfully forced many other countries to bow to their will. Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

Great force, applied decisively, can be very effective, particularly if carried through completely (e.g. Rome's complete elimination of Carthage, the United State's program of cultural assimilation). Whether it is moral - or even possible in a given situation - is another question.

[Hartzilla2007]

Cicero wrote:

---

Does it? Rome and other great empires (imperial and republican) successfully forced many other countries to bow to their will. Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

Great force, applied decisively, can be very effective, particularly if carried through completely (e.g. Rome's complete elimination of Carthage, the United State's program of cultural assimilation). Whether it is moral - or even possible in a given situation - is another question.

Isn'tthe Federation of Star Trek supposted to be ABOVE that sort of stuff though, also the Typhon Pact HASN'T done any official hostile action against the Feds so doing that makes them look like total tools who only care about remaining on top.

[Sci]

Cicero wrote:

---

Does it? Rome and other great empires (imperial and republican) successfully forced many other countries to bow to their will.

Rome fell. To say nothing of the fact that Rome was, as you put it, an empire -- a state built upon violating foreign states' rights. It was not a liberal democracy; it was an empire built on conquest and not one the Federation ought to emulate.

Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

You've just listed policies the U.S. undertook in the past that it absolutely should not have undertaken -- immoral, imperial policies that never benefitted us half as much as policies like the Marshall Plan, policies built on mutual cooperation and partnership.

[Cicero]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

Isn'tthe Federation of Star Trek supposted to be ABOVE that sort of stuff though, also the Typhon Pact HASN'T done any official hostile action against the Feds so doing that makes them look like total tools who only care about remaining on top.

Sci wrote:

---

Rome fell. To say nothing of the fact that Rome was, as you put it, an empire -- a state built upon violating foreign states' rights. It was not a liberal democracy; it was an empire built on conquest and not one the Federation ought to emulate.

Rome fell, but first it stood for a thousand years. Regardless of its eventual fate, its policies were highly successful at securing stability and safety for Rome itself for hundreds of years. Rome was predominate for a greater time than that in which most nations even exist.

I wasn't suggesting that the Federation emulate it, though. My point was to Christopher's assertion that the application of Force is a policy that will necessarily fail. I agree that it will fail if it is the only policy applied (except when used for annihilation), but do think it can be quite successful if combined with the right element of peaceful cooperation and integration - the arrows and olive branchs of the US seal, if you will. Remember that in World War II, we applied to force to (essentially) two countries, achieved a military victory, and then sustained that victory in peace by offering policies which treated the defeated nations well and brought areas ruined by war back to prosperity (e.g. the Marshall Plan).

Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

You've just listed policies the U.S. undertook in the past that it absolutely should not have undertaken -- immoral, imperial policies that never benefitted us half as much as policies like the Marshall Plan, policies built on mutual cooperation and partnership.[/QUOTE]

I disagree that our early imperial policies benefited us less than the Marshall Plan and other policies of cooperation. I doubt we would be nearly so prosperous today had the bulk of the North American continent not been united and industrialized so quickly - nevermind the initial imperialism integral to our establishment. Whether those policies were moral, is, of course, a separate question. (And one which I'd rather defer.)

Also, US intervention in the Russo-Japanese War earned President Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Hartzilla2007]

Cicero wrote:

---

Rome fell, but first it stood for a thousand years. Regardless of its eventual fate, its policies were highly successful at securing stability and safety for Rome itself for hundreds of years. Rome was predominate for a greater time than that in which most nations even exist.

I wasn't suggesting that the Federation emulate it, though. My point was to Christopher's assertion that the application of Force is a policy that will necessarily fail. I agree that it will fail if it is the only policy applied (except when used for annihilation), but do think it can be quite successful if combined with the right element of peaceful cooperation and integration - the arrows and olive branchs of the US seal, if you will. Remember that in World War II, we applied to force to (essentially) two countries, achieved a military victory, and then sustained that victory in peace by offering policies which treated the defeated nations well and brought areas ruined by war back to prosperity (e.g. the Marshall Plan).

You've just listed policies the U.S. undertook in the past that it absolutely should not have undertaken -- immoral, imperial policies that never benefitted us half as much as policies like the Marshall Plan, policies built on mutual cooperation and partnership.

I disagree that our early imperial policies benefited us less than the Marshall Plan and other policies of cooperation. I doubt we would be nearly so prosperous today had the bulk of the North American continent not been united and industrialized so quickly - nevermind the initial imperialism integral to our establishment. Whether those policies were moral, is, of course, a separate question. (And one which I'd rather defer.)

Also, US intervention in the Russo-Japanese War earned President Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize.

So your saying the Federation should declare war on the Pact which hasn't done anything to warent it and they wouldn't look like selfinterested dicks who only care about being top dog?

[rahullak]

Christopher wrote:

---

It sounds like you're looking for excuses to rationalize immoral acts. It's always easy enough to convince yourself that "the ends justify the means," but it rarely turns out well in the long run. Better to devote your energies to finding ways to do the right thing rather than looking for rationalizations for doing wrong.

Supporting a party that wants peace is all well and good. Employing dirty tricks and black-ops operations to force events to go the way you want is not "supporting" anything but your own selfish interests and arrogant desire for control. And in so doing, you undermine the legitimacy of any peace party. If their people find out that they only came to power because your spies helped overthrow their opposition (and such secrets never stay secret for long), then they will lose their people's trust and be worthless as an ally. If you really want to support a peaceful opposition, then you need to do it in a way that's aboveboard and respects the sovereign rights of their own people. You need to let them make the choice for themselves, or it will never stick. It would be stupid to employ such tactics to stave off a war in the short term only to guarantee another war later on.

No. Wrong. It sounds like you're blowing this out of proportion unnecessarily. And I find the assumptions you make about me offensive. I'm not going to continue this any further.

[Cicero]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

So your saying the Federation should declare war on the Pact which hasn't done anything to warent it and they wouldn't look like selfinterested dicks who only care about being top dog?

No, as I said above, I would not like to see the Federation do that. My point is to the effectiveness of tactics, not their morality. Above all, the Federation should be moral - else its not an optimistic future.

[Hartzilla2007]

Cicero wrote:

---

No, as I said above, I would not like to see the Federation do that. My point is to the effectiveness of tactics, not their morality. Above all, the Federation should be moral - else its not an optimistic future.

Oh, okay then sorry for the miss understanding.

[Cicero]

^ No worries.

[Rush Limborg]

I would think a good rule of thumb, as far as UFP foreign policy is concerned, would be:

No nation may initiate the use of force against another. When defending itself (and its allies) against aggressors, the Federation is perfectly justified in using force (as in the Dominion War), but only then.

Seems simple enough...in theory, of course.

In other words, if war ever breaks out between The Khitomer Alliance and The Typhon Pact, The UFP must take great pains to ensure that the Alliance does not start the war.

However...should war break out, common sense demands that the Alliance must be prepared to fight. Survival depends on it.

[rahullak]

^
Question is: Should that fight be limited to ship-to-ship combat? And should it only be defensive? During the Dominion War it was necessary to go on the offensive to end it quickly. Should direct battle be the only means of ensuring a quick end to war? More subtle and covert attempts (such as helping Cardassian dissidents against the Dominion) can be successful in ending conflict and bringing all sides to the negotiating table.