RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,238
Posts: 5,406,549
Members: 24,762
Currently online: 554
Newest member: PaulHicks

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Online Adds More Voyager Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

The Wil Wheaton Project Axed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Kurtzman’s Production Company Signs Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27


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 April 16 2013, 03:25 PM   #46
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

indolover wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Well the dilemma is at what cost will the Federation be saved. The cost is deceiving an empire into war.

um, and...?

had they not been brought in, the war would have been lost, the UFP would have been conquered, and eventually the Romulan Empire as well.

Sisko was saving both, while at the cost of some deception and a few lives.

As I wrote, Garak's quote sums it up
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16 2013, 03:58 PM   #47
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

FYI: Mike Taylor, who wrote this ep, is involved with the new show, Defiance.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16 2013, 05:46 PM   #48
Jeyl
Commodore
 
Jeyl's Avatar
 
Location: Asheville, NC
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

Whenever I think of good Trek vs. bad Trek, I always compare this episode to Enterprise's "Dear, Doctor". Where as Sisko ends this story with self-guilt and no respect for what he's done, Archer is openly confident in his decision to let a whole species die out and earns respect from his crew.
Jeyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16 2013, 06:47 PM   #49
indolover
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

sonak wrote: View Post
indolover wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Well the dilemma is at what cost will the Federation be saved. The cost is deceiving an empire into war.

um, and...?
And saving the Federation doesn't warrant that.
had they not been brought in, the war would have been lost, the UFP would have been conquered, and eventually the Romulan Empire as well.
Which Sisko could not prove totally.

Sisko was saving both, while at the cost of some deception and a few lives.

As I wrote, Garak's quote sums it up
When?
indolover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 16 2013, 07:14 PM   #50
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

Jeyl wrote: View Post
Whenever I think of good Trek vs. bad Trek, I always compare this episode to Enterprise's "Dear, Doctor". Where as Sisko ends this story with self-guilt and no respect for what he's done, Archer is openly confident in his decision to let a whole species die out and earns respect from his crew.
We have no idea what Archer's crew though beyond Phlox. We don't even get T'Pol's thoughts on withholding the cure.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17 2013, 02:55 AM   #51
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

indolover wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
indolover wrote: View Post

Well the dilemma is at what cost will the Federation be saved. The cost is deceiving an empire into war.

um, and...?
And saving the Federation doesn't warrant that.
had they not been brought in, the war would have been lost, the UFP would have been conquered, and eventually the Romulan Empire as well.
Which Sisko could not prove totally.

Sisko was saving both, while at the cost of some deception and a few lives.

As I wrote, Garak's quote sums it up
When?

saving the Federation doesn't warrant that? Your "principles" won't mean a thing when the peoples of the Federation are killed or enslaved. A government's first responsibility is self-defense. They owed the Romulans nothing. The Romulans would have been fine with watching the UFP and the Klingons be destroyed while fighting for the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant.


The Garak quote is something like "you probably saved the Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one criminal, one senator, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I'd call that a bargain."
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 17 2013, 11:25 AM   #52
USS Firefly
Commander
 
USS Firefly's Avatar
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

In my opinion it was one of the best Star Trek episode and Garak was great.

The Garak quote is something like "you probably saved the Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one criminal, one senator, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I'd call that a bargain."
Geat line
USS Firefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 05:14 AM   #53
indolover
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

sonak wrote: View Post
indolover wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post


um, and...?
And saving the Federation doesn't warrant that.
Which Sisko could not prove totally.

Sisko was saving both, while at the cost of some deception and a few lives.

As I wrote, Garak's quote sums it up
When?

saving the Federation doesn't warrant that? Your "principles" won't mean a thing when the peoples of the Federation are killed or enslaved. A government's first responsibility is self-defense. They owed the Romulans nothing. The Romulans would have been fine with watching the UFP and the Klingons be destroyed while fighting for the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant.


The Garak quote is something like "you probably saved the Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one criminal, one senator, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I'd call that a bargain."
lol.. Sisko tricked an entire Empire into war. I don't see how that deceit was justified, based upon the Romulans who may have died in the war. As for the Romulans, they didn't need to give a shit, the Federation was their long-term enemy, whilst they were blood enemies of the Klingons. Who says a government's first responsibility is self-defence?
indolover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 02:19 PM   #54
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

indolover wrote: View Post

lol.. Sisko tricked an entire Empire into war. I don't see how that deceit was justified, based upon the Romulans who may have died in the war. As for the Romulans, they didn't need to give a shit, the Federation was their long-term enemy, whilst they were blood enemies of the Klingons. Who says a government's first responsibility is self-defence?
In the Pale Moonlight wrote:
SISKO: The Founders see it as their sacred duty to bring order to the galaxy. Their order. Do you think they'll sit idly by while you keep your chaotic empire right next to their perfect order? No. If you watch us go under, then what you're really doing is signing your own death warrant.
In the Pale Moonlight wrote:
SISKO: I'd pick the side most likely to leave us in peace when the dust settles. Maybe you're right. Maybe the Dominion will win in the end. Then the Founders will control what we now call Cardassia, the Klingon Empire and the Federation. So, instead of facing three separate opponents with three separate agendas, you'll find yourselves facing the same opponent on every side. There's a word for that. Surrounded.
The Founders weren't going to allow the Romulan Empire to exist free from Dominion control when they controlled the rest of the quadrant.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 04:26 PM   #55
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

I'd agree with that, but just because Sisko said so isn't exactly hard evidence.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 07:28 PM   #56
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

R. Star wrote: View Post
I'd agree with that, but just because Sisko said so isn't exactly hard evidence.
It's really just simple logic. The Founders, who fear solids, weren't going to take over the Federation, the Cardassians and the Klingons and yet allow the Romulan Empire to continue to operate as it always has.

After conquering the rest, they would have been controlling Romulus inside of six weeks.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 07:57 PM   #57
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

BillJ wrote: View Post
R. Star wrote: View Post
I'd agree with that, but just because Sisko said so isn't exactly hard evidence.
It's really just simple logic. The Founders, who fear solids, weren't going to take over the Federation, the Cardassians and the Klingons and yet allow the Romulan Empire to continue to operate as it always has.

After conquering the rest, they would have been controlling Romulus inside of six weeks.
Dax(as Romulan advocate): That's speculation.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 08:27 PM   #58
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

indolover wrote: View Post
sonak wrote: View Post
indolover wrote: View Post

And saving the Federation doesn't warrant that.
Which Sisko could not prove totally.

When?

saving the Federation doesn't warrant that? Your "principles" won't mean a thing when the peoples of the Federation are killed or enslaved. A government's first responsibility is self-defense. They owed the Romulans nothing. The Romulans would have been fine with watching the UFP and the Klingons be destroyed while fighting for the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant.


The Garak quote is something like "you probably saved the Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one criminal, one senator, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I'd call that a bargain."
lol.. Sisko tricked an entire Empire into war. I don't see how that deceit was justified, based upon the Romulans who may have died in the war. As for the Romulans, they didn't need to give a shit, the Federation was their long-term enemy, whilst they were blood enemies of the Klingons. Who says a government's first responsibility is self-defence?

if you don't think a government's first responsibility is self-defense then there's no point in arguing this. A government cannot carry out ANY OTHER responsibilities if it is destroyed or conquered. Arguing about "federation principles" when there is no federation left is just silly.

The Federation and the Klingons were fighting FOR the Romulans whether the Romulans would admit it or not. The Dominion would have gone after them next.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 10:17 PM   #59
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

R. Star wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
R. Star wrote: View Post
I'd agree with that, but just because Sisko said so isn't exactly hard evidence.
It's really just simple logic. The Founders, who fear solids, weren't going to take over the Federation, the Cardassians and the Klingons and yet allow the Romulan Empire to continue to operate as it always has.

After conquering the rest, they would have been controlling Romulus inside of six weeks.
Dax(as Romulan advocate): That's speculation.
If the Romulans can't see that the fall of the Federation, Klingons and Cardassians to an extra-quadrant power isn't bad for their long-term sustainability, then they deserved to fall.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 04:00 AM   #60
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Anyone here who HATES "in the pale moonlight"

Could be. But the war wasn't ever -that- one sided. The momentum swung back and forth a number of times. The Federation and Klingons managed to hold the line and take DS9 by themselves. Betazed falling... unfortunate but happens. Sisko indicated it was more because the Fed fleet was out of position than sheer overwhelming force though.

The power disparity couldn't have been that great because when the Romulans joined that tilted the balance of power to the Federation's side and they went on the offensive in Chintaka. It took the Breen joining up with the Dominion for them to get the initiative back and even then that was mainly due to their super weapon which once countered, the good guys were right back on the offensive.

Without bring tricked into having a personal stake in the war... from the Romulans perspective their two greatest rivals are slugging it out. Yeah... too bad.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star 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 03:12 AM.

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