Insurrection

[BillJ]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

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.

[Hartzilla2007]

BillJ wrote:

---

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.

[BillJ]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

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.

[sonak]

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

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.

[JarodRussell]

BillJ wrote:

---

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]

sonak wrote:

---

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.

[BillJ]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?

[T'Girl]

BillJ wrote:

---

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.

[sonak]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Well, who decides where the borders of the US end? The US.

And if France kicked the US' ass in self defense, it would be fine as well, wouldn't it?

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

---

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.

[T'Girl]

Vasquez Rocks wrote:

---

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.

[FKnight]

Merry Christmas wrote:

---

That might make them Federation citizens. But it wouldn't hand the planet to their parents.

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.

[JarodRussell]

sonak wrote:

---

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.

[sonak]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

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.

[Hartzilla2007]

sonak wrote:

---

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.

[BillJ]

The bi-monthly Insurrection pissing match always makes me laugh.