The Maquis or the Federation?

[Timo]

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

[starburst]

Timo wrote:

---

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.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

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.

[Romulus Prime]

[QUOTE=Mr. Laser Beam;6756878]

Ian Keldon wrote:

---

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.

[sonak]

Mage wrote:

---

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.

[DonIago]

^^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.

[Mage]

sonak wrote:

---

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?

[Nightdiamond]

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?

[R. Star]

Nightdiamond wrote:

---

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.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Mage wrote:

---

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.

[Hartzilla2007]

starburst wrote:

---

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.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ 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.

[Hartzilla2007]

Mr. Laser Beam wrote:

---

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.

[-Brett-]

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.

[DonIago]

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.