Insurrection as an episode...

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

In the real world I am no isolationist, there is international law that regulates when the sovereignty of a nation can be violated. Withholding medical assets is not a trigger, otherwise you could invade any country that has pharmaceutical companies.
Trek is what you call isolationist, the Federation has no right to mess with other cultures in any case. Not when there is are devastating wars and certainly not because they withhold a medical asset.

So your position is violating law in the Trekverse as well as in the real world. To pretend that you are actually doing something ethical while ravaging and raping people is a bad joke at best.

again, you're dealing only in abstracts rather than the concrete facts of the situation presented in INS. I understand why you frame the argument in that manner, because then you don't have to address the absurdities of the ACTUAL "dilemma," you just talk in abstracts like Picard did.


By the way, what is your response to my point on the PD and the Baku? If it's violating the law to intefere with them, why isn't Picard violating it by taking sides in a "blood feud?"

Why doesn't Dougherty just take Ru'afo aside when he learns the truth and say "hey buddy, we're going to pull out, do what you have to with the Baku, just don't kill them, and then you can trade the particles you harvested from the planet with us later, ok?"


I don't see how the PD allows Picard to do what he did in helping the Baku. But the best part is, it's only an issue to YOUR side, not mine, because I don't think the PD even applies, and even if it did, the PD is stupid to me anyway and it would make no difference.


Ball's in your court.(Or on your side of the football field. Whichever)

[horatio83]

Sorry but I do not play your game. What Picard does is a reaction to a Federation action.
We are still debating the action, whether the imperialist behaviour of the Federation constitutes a crime or not. And I am getting tired of your stupid accusations of dogmatism or being too abstract just because I point out that kidnapping, stealing (and ultimately murdering) people from another nation is utterly criminal under the Federation rules and any real world law or rule of peacefully living together.

As you value concreteness so deeply, feel free to point out just one example from history where what you advocate, relocating the citizens of another nations and stealing from them, has lead to a good result.

[Sindatur]

sonak wrote:

---

Again, in most circumstances, I'd agree with you. The UFP doesn't go around stealing planets and relocating cultures just to get something it wants.

But there are exceptions to rules and this situation is one of them for many reasons:

1. The Baku aren't native to the planet
2. They are an artificial "culture" of 600, only sustained in their way of life by the magical properties of the planet.
3. The Son'a have just as much right to the planet as they do, and the Son'a were partners of the Federation


All that doesn't even touch on the larger issue of again, whether the property rights of a tiny minority outweighs the improved well-being of billions across the galaxy. For me, obviously, the answer is that the well-being of billions outweighs property rights of a group that's not even native to the planet.

It's interesting to see so many argue the opposite, though-I wonder if people would argue the same way in the abstract, and removed from the specific scenario of a Star Trek movie.

I'm not really sure why it matters if they're native to the Planet? They've been living there for 300 years, I believe. How many Federation Colonies are there, where the Citizens aren't native and have only lived there 50 or 100 years? So, if one of those Federation Colonies is the only place that will grow a certain flower, that will cure a plague The Romulans are fighting, is it cool for the Romulans to take that Planet?

What kind of defense is it that they're only maintained by the "Magical Properties of the planet"? Seems to me that's a reason not to move them, because you'll be killing them.

As far as the Son'a having a claim to the planet as well, well, I didn't see The Federation helping the Bajorans get rid of their invaders, who were actually already enemies of the Federation

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Sorry but I do not play your game. What Picard does is a reaction to a Federation action.
We are still debating the action, whether the imperialist behaviour of the Federation constitutes a crime or not. And I am getting tired of your stupid accusations of dogmatism or being too abstract just because I point out that kidnapping, stealing (and ultimately murdering) people from another nation is utterly criminal under the Federation rules and any real world law or rule of peacefully living together.

As you value concreteness so deeply, feel free to point out just one example from history where what you advocate, relocating the citizens of another nations and stealing from them, has lead to a good result.

indeed, what Picard did is a reaction to UFP actions. But once he realized that it was a "blood feud" and that the Son'a had a legitimate claim to the planet, if he were being consistent and not the colossal hypocrite that he was being, he'd have said "well, this is no longer an issue of forced relocation, it's now a civil war."


And civil wars fall under the PD, as we see in "redemption." So again, the Baku would lose if Picard were being written consistently.

If horatio83 won't take it, somebody else want to field that? How is Picard NOT violating the PD once he discovers the truth about the Baku and Son'a?


As to your question, there are many examples throughout history of relocations and resettlements of large groups of people. National boundaries aren't written in the sky. They're created by militaries, politicians, and people. I guess "good result" depends on one's point of view or what you mean.

[Hartzilla2007]

sonak wrote:

---

indeed, what Picard did is a reaction to UFP actions. But once he realized that it was a "blood feud" and that the Son'a had a legitimate claim to the planet, if he were being consistent and not the colossal hypocrite that he was being, he'd have said "well, this is no longer an issue of forced relocation, it's now a civil war."


And civil wars fall under the PD, as we see in "redemption." So again, the Baku would lose if Picard were being written consistently.

If horatio83 won't take it, somebody else want to field that? How is Picard NOT violating the PD once he discovers the truth about the Baku and Son'a?

You mean the Son'a who were in the process of planning to murder him and the other Starfleet officers at the time AFTER attacking the Enterprise, because at that point its more of the Son'a are attacking them and the Prime Directive doesn't prevent them from kicking the crap out of people trying to kill them.

[Sindatur]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

You mean the Son'a who were in the process of planning to murder him and the other Starfleet officers at the time AFTER attacking the Enterprise, because at that point its more of the Son'a are attacking them and the Prime Directive doesn't prevent them from kicking the crap out of people trying to kill them.

But, the Prime Directive would prevent Starfleet from involving themselves and aiding a race on one side of a Civil War

[sonak]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

You mean the Son'a who were in the process of planning to murder him and the other Starfleet officers at the time AFTER attacking the Enterprise, because at that point its more of the Son'a are attacking them and the Prime Directive doesn't prevent them from kicking the crap out of people trying to kill them.

they were doing that because Picard was interfering in the Son'a plan. If Picard and co. had signaled a readiness to leave the system to the Baku and Son'a to fight it out, it's not like Ru'afo was going to go pursue them.

[Vasquez Rocks]

sonak wrote:

---

again, you're dealing only in abstracts rather than the concrete facts of the situation presented in INS. I understand why you frame the argument in that manner, because then you don't have to address the absurdities of the ACTUAL "dilemma," you just talk in abstracts like Picard did.


By the way, what is your response to my point on the PD and the Baku? If it's violating the law to intefere with them, why isn't Picard violating it by taking sides in a "blood feud?"

Why doesn't Dougherty just take Ru'afo aside when he learns the truth and say "hey buddy, we're going to pull out, do what you have to with the Baku, just don't kill them, and then you can trade the particles you harvested from the planet with us later, ok?"


I don't see how the PD allows Picard to do what he did in helping the Baku. But the best part is, it's only an issue to YOUR side, not mine, because I don't think the PD even applies, and even if it did, the PD is stupid to me anyway and it would make no difference.


Ball's in your court.(Or on your side of the football field. Whichever)

You're forgetting that the blood feud between the two isn't revealed until the end of the movie. By this point Picard is a prisoner of the Son'a. The information is then given to Dougherty who agrees to pull out of the situation (which gets him stretched to death by Ru'afo). This all happens in about the last fifteen minutes of the film.

[horatio83]

sonak wrote:

---

As to your question, there are many examples throughout history of relocations and resettlements of large groups of people. National boundaries aren't written in the sky. They're created by militaries, politicians, and people. I guess "good result" depends on one's point of view or what you mean.

Still waiting for an example of a forceful relocation that lead to a good results and yes, you can judge it by whatever categories you deem appropriate.

[Hartzilla2007]

Sindatur wrote:

---

But, the Prime Directive would prevent Starfleet from involving themselves and aiding a race on one side of a Civil War

What part of THEY WERE TRYING TO KILL HIM AT THE TIME do you not understand the Prime Directive doesn't say squat about not kicking someone's ass when they are trying to KILL you, or else every time the Starfleet officers defended themselves from hostiles they would be violating the Prime Directive which is beyond ridiculous.

[DonIago]

I think the point being made is that if Our Heroes had offered to stand down once they learned the true nature of the conflict they would have appeared less hypocritical.

[Hartzilla2007]

DonIago wrote:

---

I think the point being made is that if Our Heroes had offered to stand down once they learned the true nature of the conflict they would have appeared less hypocritical.

Except

1) There really wasn't any time to do so

2) The Son'a were still going to kill them.

[DonIago]

I don't really agree with that...Picard confronted Ru'afo directly, and he knew the situation at that point. He surely could have offered to stand down his forces at that point, but didn't offer to do so.

It seems a bit uncharitable to assume the Son'a would still have killed them at that point, especially since the movie made a point of establishing that there was at least some dissension in the Son'a ranks.

[sonak]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Still waiting for an example of a forceful relocation that lead to a good results and yes, you can judge it by whatever categories you deem appropriate.

DonIago wrote:

---

I think the point being made is that if Our Heroes had offered to stand down once they learned the true nature of the conflict they would have appeared less hypocritical.

again, it what depend what you mean by "good results." There aren't really comparable situations in real life to having a small village be sitting on top of the type of resource in INS, so it would be a silly comparison. I can think of some forced relocations that certain ethnic or nationalities would have found to have "good results," but it's still not comparable. Which is why I say that it's so important to look at the concrete matters of THIS situation. The issue isn't whether about forced relocation is good in the abstract, because it isn't. It's about whether it's JUSTIFIED HERE, which it is.


And as to DonIago's point, yes that's it exactly. There's no "my god what have I done?" realization on Picard's part that he just flagrantly broke the PD and took a side in a civil war. He goes blithely on his way, never acknowledging that he was wrong, and that the Son'a may have been justified. It makes him look like a colossal hypocrite after his debate with Dougherty.

And there may have still been some time to salvage the situation at the end, with an offer to withdraw the UFP. But no, there's no such attempt.

[Hartzilla2007]

DonIago wrote:

---

I don't really agree with that...Picard confronted Ru'afo directly, and he knew the situation at that point. He surely could have offered to stand down his forces at that point, but didn't offer to do so.

And how does being held in a Son'a brig leave him in any position to order them to stand down without everyone thinking he was coerced into doing so.

It seems a bit uncharitable to assume the Son'a would still have killed them at that point,

You mean the guys who have been lying to them the whole time up to that point?

So just to clarify yon believe that Ru'afo (who was shown to probably be nuts) wouldn't have ordered the Starfleet officers who weren't part of Picard's group placed in an area where the collector would kill them after murdering the Starfleet admiral present after said admiral seems to be having his people pulled out when he found out that the Son'a lying to them to drag them into his revenge scheme, if Picard had said I give up?

especially since the movie made a point of establishing that there was at least some dissension in the Son'a ranks.

One guy does not equate to a full on mutiny, everyone else didn't seem to have a problem there and the one guy only agreed to help Picard after he verbally bitch slapped him.