RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,572
Posts: 5,402,770
Members: 24,865
Currently online: 540
Newest member: shyrim

TrekToday headlines

October-November 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Cho Selfie TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

TPTB To Shatner: Shhh!
By: T'Bonz on Sep 30

Mystery Mini Vinyl Figure Display Box
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

The Red Shirt Diaries Episode Five
By: T'Bonz on Sep 29

Shatner In Trek 3? Well Maybe
By: T'Bonz on Sep 28

Retro Review: Shadows and Symbols
By: Michelle on Sep 27

Meyer: Revitalizing Star Trek
By: T'Bonz on Sep 26

Trek Costumes To Be Auctioned
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25

Hulu Snaps up Abrams-Produced Drama
By: T'Bonz on Sep 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Deep Space Nine

Deep Space Nine What We Left Behind, we will always have here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 5 2012, 11:42 AM   #46
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Never mind that they were responding to Cardassian attacks, right Timo?
That's really mature... "He started it! I have the right! I have the right!"

Your fascism is showing again, Timo.[..]Or they would be hailed as great national heroes if they succeeded, and become known by names like the Founding Fathers.
Yes, yes. Sieg Heil and all that - Iron Crosses to everybody! Killing is brave and bold and walking away is non-Aryan! And we hav teh Rigth!

Pack up your stuff...I have just decreed YOU don't need to have and live wherever it is you do. See how YOU like having your property and life stolen from you.
What property? You told me to pack "my stuff" - ergo, I still have it. And I definitely am walking away with my life.

So I happen to change address. Big deal. You expect me to come and rape your wife and eat your children for that? Fat chance, pervert!

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 01:03 PM   #47
starburst
Fleet Captain
 
starburst's Avatar
 
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Timo wrote: View Post
Never mind that they were responding to Cardassian attacks, right Timo?
That's really mature... "He started it! I have the right! I have the right!"
With that logic you could say that the response to Pear Harbour or 9/11 was immature...parties in each instance were attacked and decided to respond.
starburst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 04:37 PM   #48
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Ian Keldon wrote: View Post
No, they were summarily TOLD what was going to happen, despite their protests. The Federation never took their rights or desires into consideration when crafting the treaty.
Watch "Journey's End" again. The colonists specifically requested to stay in the DMZ and live under Cardassian rule, and they were allowed to do this. It was their idea. The Federation wanted to move them, but was persuaded not to.

The actual signing of the peace treaty was not done with the colonists' consent, but it didn't need to be. It was done because the Federation had this thing about, you know, not wanting to go to war with Cardassia ever again. Given this, the opinion of a few hundred wannabe-revolutionaries just doesn't seem quite so important.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 06:49 PM   #49
Romulus Prime
Lieutenant Commander
 
Romulus Prime's Avatar
 
Location: The broken state of California
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

[QUOTE=Mr. Laser Beam;6756878]
Ian Keldon wrote: View Post
The actual signing of the peace treaty was not done with the colonists' consent, but it didn't need to be. It was done because the Federation had this thing about, you know, not wanting to go to war with Cardassia ever again. Given this, the opinion of a few hundred wannabe-revolutionaries just doesn't seem quite so important.
And look where it got them. Fake peace is Fake, and letting an obviously aggressive faction have territory as a concession for NON-aggression basically empowered the known bully in that corner of space.

Way to go, Feds.
__________________
Centurion: "...power is danger."

Romulan Commander: "Danger and I are old companions." - TOS episode Balance of Terror


"Living in your dreams is like living in exile.
" - Calyx, A Stitch in Time


"Shame on you, Barack Obama!" -
Hillary Clinton

"It's the economy, stupid." - Bill Clinton
Romulus Prime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 06:51 PM   #50
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Mage wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
Mage wrote: View Post


Silly? These people had made lives for themselves there. If you were suddenly told that the home you lived in was going to be taken from you, the home where you are happy and want to spend your life, you don't just say 'well that's just super, where do I sign up?'. Even if your government was going to pay for a new house, give you a job and feed you. You are happy where you are.

The Maquis were right in there cause. The Federation had no right to just give away those colonies without atleast asking what the people who life there think about it. You talk about Utopia (and as Sisko said, only the coreworlds have real Utopia, the colonies still have to struggle to maintain themselves). In a Utopian society, everybody matters. No one is forced into doing anything they don't want. So by forcing to settlers into abandoning their homes, the Federation is basicly showing their true colors.

Perhaps the attitude of doing what you are told works for Starfleet officers, but a civilian will struggle with that sort of forced relocation. Hell, even Starfleet officers saw how wrong it was and decided to join up.

1. Yes I'd be fine with moving, if we're talking in the context of a 24th century society where my needs are provided for and I'd be provided with a new home, and if it meant peace. Some random piece of property isn't worth a war. (I realize that it didn't exactly bring peace here, but I mean hypothetical or potential peace)

2. The Federation had EVERY right to do what they did. They're a democracy whose legitimately elected leaders made a legal treaty with another government, and I assume the treaty had broad support outside of that small minority of colonists.


A free society doesn't mean that nobody ever has to do anything they don't want to. That's more like anarchy.

Anarchy is a misunderstood concept. Literally, it means nothing more and nothing less then not believing in the benefits of a single ruler or rulingbody. End of story. All the other horror stories connected to anarchy are the result of punk teenagers in the (mostly) the UK, who had no sense of identity and used a misinterpreted version of anarchy as something to rally behind, thinking it ment they could plunder, riot and be violent. That's not what anarchy is.

And just because leaders are chosen by the people, doesn't automatically mean that all there actions are just and right. Just look at history to see how that has worked out so well over the centuries.

And honoustly people, some of the reactions of people in this thread.... It's just and right that these colonists were burned for not listening to their government?? That's not really the message of understanding and having respect for others and their opinions that Trek is teaching us.

So your position is that anytime a small minority of citizens disagree with the decisions of a legitimate, democratic government, that they have the right to violently resist that government and wage war? How would you ever have a functioning society? In a democracy, on any given policy you have a number of people who disagree with the current one. If they took up arms every time they felt they had a cause, you'd have chaos.

And again, it wasn't like the UFP was being absurd or tyrannical here. Making some minor border modifications/swaps in the interest of long-term peace is certainly defensible and reasonable.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 06:53 PM   #51
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

^^You're right, if the Federation doesn't have absolute faith in the parties with which they're considering signing treaties, they should refuse to do so at all. And if war results? Well hell, that's so much better than an imperfect peace.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 07:17 PM   #52
Mage
Commodore
 
Mage's Avatar
 
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

sonak wrote: View Post
Mage wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post


1. Yes I'd be fine with moving, if we're talking in the context of a 24th century society where my needs are provided for and I'd be provided with a new home, and if it meant peace. Some random piece of property isn't worth a war. (I realize that it didn't exactly bring peace here, but I mean hypothetical or potential peace)

2. The Federation had EVERY right to do what they did. They're a democracy whose legitimately elected leaders made a legal treaty with another government, and I assume the treaty had broad support outside of that small minority of colonists.


A free society doesn't mean that nobody ever has to do anything they don't want to. That's more like anarchy.

Anarchy is a misunderstood concept. Literally, it means nothing more and nothing less then not believing in the benefits of a single ruler or rulingbody. End of story. All the other horror stories connected to anarchy are the result of punk teenagers in the (mostly) the UK, who had no sense of identity and used a misinterpreted version of anarchy as something to rally behind, thinking it ment they could plunder, riot and be violent. That's not what anarchy is.

And just because leaders are chosen by the people, doesn't automatically mean that all there actions are just and right. Just look at history to see how that has worked out so well over the centuries.

And honoustly people, some of the reactions of people in this thread.... It's just and right that these colonists were burned for not listening to their government?? That's not really the message of understanding and having respect for others and their opinions that Trek is teaching us.

So your position is that anytime a small minority of citizens disagree with the decisions of a legitimate, democratic government, that they have the right to violently resist that government and wage war? How would you ever have a functioning society? In a democracy, on any given policy you have a number of people who disagree with the current one. If they took up arms every time they felt they had a cause, you'd have chaos.

And again, it wasn't like the UFP was being absurd or tyrannical here. Making some minor border modifications/swaps in the interest of long-term peace is certainly defensible and reasonable.

I believe that if you want to come across as a government in which all parties are taken into consideration, you can't just give away territory for the greater good. That way, you are in essence betraying the principales in which that government was based. The Federation believes that EVERYONE has a right to live a happy life. By forcing people to move out of their homes, you are not letting them live the life they want.
I can understand how you say you could wake away from your home, your planet, your friends, your life. And some of the colonists did as you would. Some didn't.

The colonists were given a choice, move or life under Cardassian rule. They were never asked if they were oke with the Federation giving their homes away.

And that's how we come to Sisko's comment in "The Maquis". How it's very easy for people living in actual paradise to ignore how life is in the colonies. That these people were not living in the same kind of luxury that the core worlds of the Federation have. They chose to go out there, and create a world instead of simply living in one. The Federation says 'sure, go ahead, good for you'. But suddenly, when the Federation feels they have a better purpose for those planets, they suddenly say 'yeah, you know, we kinda need those worlds. And technically, they are still ours, so sorry'.
Can you blame the colonists for not trusting the Federation, for fighting for what they build?
__________________
Niner. Lurker. Browncoat.
Mage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 07:49 PM   #53
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

You have to wonder if some of those colonists put themselves in that situation in the first place.

Establishing colonies right on the border of Cardassian space- where territory is hotly disputed.

It wasn't just the colony in Journey's End, but obviously other colonies as well. They must have been warned too.

If they were made aware of the situation and went ahead anyway, then I don't know.

They had the right to defend themselves, but I'm a big believer in looking before you leap.

The Federation is said to have plenty of planets for inhabiting and as stated before, all needs and wants have been easily taken care of already.

What's with the need for extreme risk taking like this?
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 5 2012, 09:15 PM   #54
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Nightdiamond wrote: View Post
You have to wonder if some of those colonists put themselves in that situation in the first place.

Establishing colonies right on the border of Cardassian space- where territory is hotly disputed.

It wasn't just the colony in Journey's End, but obviously other colonies as well. They must have been warned too.

If they were made aware of the situation and went ahead anyway, then I don't know.

They had the right to defend themselves, but I'm a big believer in looking before you leap.

The Federation is said to have plenty of planets for inhabiting and as stated before, all needs and wants have been easily taken care of already.

What's with the need for extreme risk taking like this?
Given some of the Maquis on Voyager cited being born on those colonies, it's perfectly reasonable to say they were settled before the first Cardassian/Federation war. They would have to be, being the Setlik III attack was the first aggressive act by the Cardassians.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 02:08 AM   #55
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Mage wrote: View Post
I believe that if you want to come across as a government in which all parties are taken into consideration, you can't just give away territory for the greater good.
You not only can, you MUST. There must always be a balance between the greater good and the lesser. The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few (or the one).

Given that there are vast amounts of territory still available in the Federation, and that relocating the colonists to such territory is easy, then I can totally see why the Federation might choose to sign a treaty like this. The choices are these:

1) Do nothing, which will ensure war with Cardassia, in which millions will be killed.
2) Relocate a few hundred colonists.

Now tell me, which is the better option of those two?

That way, you are in essence betraying the principales in which that government was based.
The Federation is indeed attempting to provide a better life to its citizens, core worlds and colonies alike. By signing the treaty, war is averted. I'd call that a better life.

The Federation believes that EVERYONE has a right to live a happy life. By forcing people to move out of their homes, you are not letting them live the life they want.
You can't always get what you want.

The colonists were given a choice, move or life under Cardassian rule. They were never asked if they were oke with the Federation giving their homes away.
Actually, the colonists themselves brought up the idea of living under Cardassian control.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 02:30 AM   #56
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

starburst wrote: View Post
Timo wrote: View Post
Never mind that they were responding to Cardassian attacks, right Timo?
That's really mature... "He started it! I have the right! I have the right!"
With that logic you could say that the response to Pear Harbour or 9/11 was immature...parties in each instance were attacked and decided to respond.
Not to mention that the Caradaasian attackers were supported by their government which was against the treaty.

Also not to mention that the federation was ignorant of said treaty violation as well as the fact that both sides in the DMZ were shooting at each other.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 02:33 AM   #57
George Steinbrenner
Fleet Admiral
 
George Steinbrenner's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View George Steinbrenner's Twitter Profile
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

^ Which brings to mind the question, were there innocent Cardassian colonists who were being harassed by armed humans?

Given Eddington's attitude, and assuming there were other Maquis like him, I find that rather likely.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
George Steinbrenner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 02:55 AM   #58
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
that relocating the colonists to such territory is easy, then I can totally see why the Federation might choose to sign a treaty like this.
Actually there was no mention of how easy or hard it would have been on screen.

In fact when the novels mentoned it the writers went with the belief that it was difficult as other worlds in the federation now had to deal with a large refugee influx.

The choices are these:

1) Do nothing, which will ensure war with Cardassia, in which millions will be killed.

2) Relocate a few hundred colonists.
So basically do what the Cardassians want or they kill you.

Well that's a very diplomatic race right there

The Federation is indeed attempting to provide a better life to its citizens, core worlds and colonies alike. By signing the treaty, war is averted. I'd call that a better life.
So that particular treaty which the Cardassians didn't even bother honoring was the only way to prevent war?

Actually, the colonists themselves brought up the idea of living under Cardassian control.
Which would mean that the Federation is sticking their nose in a Cardassian internal matter.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 03:05 AM   #59
-Brett-
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Forget the Maquis. What about that Dominion war? Millions dead because those entitled douchebags on Earth were too selfish to relocate. Shame on anyone who supports the Federation. Peace is worth more than some random property, after all.
-Brett- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6 2012, 03:32 AM   #60
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: The Maquis or the Federation?

Oh please. One could just as easily say the DW never would have happened if the Maquis hadn't been entitled douchebags who pushed Cardassia into the alliance.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
cardassian, eddington, federation, maquis, starfleet

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:21 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.