RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,358
Posts: 5,503,253
Members: 25,121
Currently online: 609
Newest member: almehtabshaikh

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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 Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 2 2012, 11:11 PM   #61
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Insurrection

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations.
So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?
In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.

Yes, it would be okay with me.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 11:44 PM   #62
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

BillJ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations.
So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?
In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.
I'm responding to his territorial sovereignty comment since he seems to have a problem with it by pointing out a conclusion conclusion of his position.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 2 2012, 11:50 PM   #63
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Insurrection

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?
In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.
I'm responding to his territorial sovereignty comment since he seems to have a problem with it by pointing out a conclusion conclusion of his position.
Like anything else in life, you're going to do things on a case-by-case basis.

If there had been a billion people on the planet or if they were going to drop dead the second you moved them off planet, then you would have to handle the situation differently.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2012, 12:23 AM   #64
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?
In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.
I'm responding to his territorial sovereignty comment since he seems to have a problem with it by pointing out a conclusion conclusion of his position.

you've misunderstood me. I am not saying I have a problem with sovereignty in principle. I am saying that the ENTIRE BASIS of your argument is simply that.

As BillJ put it, if a "country" were made up of one village of 600, and it was sitting on the cure for cancer but the process of getting the cure involved having to move those 600,, are you honestly saying that you'd be against it?


If yes, then as I wrote, you are not analyzing things on a case-by-case basis, you are simply elevating absolutist principle above actual good.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2012, 12:27 AM   #65
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

BillJ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
so... the basis of your entire argument is that territorial sovereignty is supreme and trumps all other considerations.
So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?
In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.
Well, who decides where the borders of the US end? The US.

Yes, it would be okay with me.
And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2012, 12:43 AM   #66
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
As BillJ put it, if a "country" were made up of one village of 600, and it was sitting on the cure for cancer but the process of getting the cure involved having to move those 600,, are you honestly saying that you'd be against it?
If you had worked out an arrangement of some sort with them beforehand and didn't try to kidnap them without even letting them so much as know you exist I would be okay with it, unfortunately for some reason didn't think they might want to at lest try doing that.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2012, 01:05 AM   #67
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2012, 03:00 AM   #68
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Insurrection

BillJ wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?
When the French soldiers simultaneously dropped their guns in surrender, and they unexpectedly all went off, kicking the American's asses as the Americans held their sides in laughter.

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2012, 03:10 AM   #69
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post

So if the United States decided to invade say France and take something they want (and lets be honest here want is exactly what this is about not need) from them and they just don't want to go through the hassle of negotiating this is okay with you?
In order for your analogy to work, France would have to be inside the borders of the U.S. (or whatever nation you choose), only having six people in the totality of the territory and have something that will better the entire planet.
Well, who decides where the borders of the US end? The US.

Yes, it would be okay with me.
And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
As BillJ put it, if a "country" were made up of one village of 600, and it was sitting on the cure for cancer but the process of getting the cure involved having to move those 600,, are you honestly saying that you'd be against it?
If you had worked out an arrangement of some sort with them beforehand and didn't try to kidnap them without even letting them so much as know you exist I would be okay with it, unfortunately for some reason didn't think they might want to at lest try doing that.

that the Baku weren't asked is a criticism of the FILM, not of my argument. Of course I'd favor attempting a diplomatic resolution involving compensation rather than the convoluted kidnapping scheme that we saw, but that's just because the movie is poorly written and lacking in simple common sense. It SHOULD have been that Dougherty and the UFP thought the Baku really were primitives indigenous to the planet. Then their plan would have at least made sense as an effort to preserve the PD in spirit, if not in letter.


As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 3 2012, 03:17 AM   #70
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Insurrection

Vasquez Rocks wrote: View Post
But aren't Artim and the other Ba'ku children natives of the planet, having been born there?
That might make them Federation citizens. But it wouldn't hand the planet to their parents.

I also don't get how the Federation owns the planet when they didn't exist centuries ago from when the Ba'ku first settled there.
Because that region of space has traded hands multiple time, never into the ownership of the Baku.

Consider the city of New Orleans.
It was establish in 1718 by the French Mississippi Company.
Then ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1763.
Then reverted to French in 1801.
Then sold to the United States in 1803.

As the city and the territory that held it changed hands periodically, the authority and jurisdiction changed too, for the people living there it often made little difference. But they, just like the Baku, were under the new jurisdiction each time.

Even if no control was exercised upon them.

Merry Christmas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2012, 03:38 AM   #71
FKnight
Commander
 
FKnight's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

Merry Christmas wrote: View Post
Vasquez Rocks wrote: View Post
But aren't Artim and the other Ba'ku children natives of the planet, having been born there?
That might make them Federation citizens. But it wouldn't hand the planet to their parents.

I also don't get how the Federation owns the planet when they didn't exist centuries ago from when the Ba'ku first settled there.
Because that region of space has traded hands multiple time, never into the ownership of the Baku.

Consider the city of New Orleans.
It was establish in 1718 by the French Mississippi Company.
Then ceded to the Spanish Empire in 1763.
Then reverted to French in 1801.
Then sold to the United States in 1803.

As the city and the territory that held it changed hands periodically, the authority and jurisdiction changed too, for the people living there it often made little difference. But they, just like the Baku, were under the new jurisdiction each time.

Even if no control was exercised upon them.

I don't think a 2 dimensional parcel of land with an area of 350 square miles is an equal comparison to the territorial issue of the Ba'ku planet and I don't think Federation "territory" works like that.

I think the geographical boundaries of "Federation Space" and the political and jurisdictional boundaries of the "United Federation of Planets" are being conflated. The Ba'ku planet was a "Federation planet" in that it fell within the geographic region agreed upon between the powers of the quadrant (through treaties, wars, diplomacy, etc.) to be under Federation influence, with the understanding that the Federation will likely defend these parts of space, or at least lays legitimate claim -- all within the context of recognition by the galactic powers (Romulans, Klingons, Tholians, Cardassians, etc.)

The Ba'ku planet was not, however, a "Federation planet" in the legal/political sense -- it was not a member of the Federation, had no representation on the Federation council, and were not subject to Federation law. The planet, therefore, was not subject to any decisions by the Federation. If they were, the UFP would be a conquering power. A planet doesn't become beholden to Federation law or the whims of the Federation just because a bunch of diplomats drew a line on a map of outer space. Why stop at Ba'ku? I hear the Halkans have a ton of dilithium the Federation could use. I'm pretty sure they're in "Federation space."

Add to that, the Ba'ku settled this planet three years before Earth's Terra Nova colony even launched, and three years after Earth discovered warp speed. As far as the Federation is concerned, to paraphrase Chancellor Gowron, the Ba'ku's claim to that planet is ancient.
__________________
"You have been examined. Your ship must be destroyed. We make assumption you have a deity, or deities, or some such beliefs which comfort you. We therefore grant you ten Earth time periods known as minutes to make preparations."

Last edited by FKnight; December 4 2012 at 03:52 AM. Reason: Clarified timeline.
FKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2012, 08:35 PM   #72
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.
Just as thrilled as any soldier who has to protect people who can't or won't defend themselves, I guess.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 4 2012, 11:54 PM   #73
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Insurrection

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.
Just as thrilled as any soldier who has to protect people who can't or won't defend themselves, I guess.

not quite. Usually soldiers defend members of their own political unit, be it a tribe, state, or nation. But that doesn't apply here, because your argument is that the Baku are neutral, and most definitely NOT part of the UFP.

Also, the soldier in this situation is aware that he is defending a group that are hoarding a resource that could cure all of the various folks back home who have various diseases or ailments, but that they have no interest in helping anyone but themselves.


So a bit more bitterness there, probably.
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 01:04 AM   #74
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Insurrection

sonak wrote: View Post
As for the "kicking their ass in self-defense"-how does that apply to the movie? The Baku didn't win the fight, they had someone else do their fighting for them. If your point is "have the Baku fight it out with the Son'a," then I'm fine with that, but the Son'a still win. It doesn't exactly endear the Baku to the audience that they are "pacifists" who are happy to let others risk their lives and fight on their behalf. And the ending pretty much guarantees that the UFP will be committed to defending the Baku from now on. I'm sure Starfleet officers are thrilled about that prospect.
Defend them from what the Son'a and the Baku want to try to getting along again at the end of the film.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 5 2012, 01:34 AM   #75
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Insurrection

The bi-monthly Insurrection pissing match always makes me laugh.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

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 05:00 PM.

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