RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,957
Posts: 5,480,116
Members: 25,057
Currently online: 493
Newest member: Ghost_of_Bubba

TrekToday headlines

USS Enterprise Press-Out And Build Manual
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

New QMx USS Reliant Model
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Star Trek Thirty-Five Years On 35MM: A Retrospective
By: T'Bonz on Nov 28

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25


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 April 28 2013, 03:11 PM   #241
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

I totally agree that in this instance the case would take some time and land before a judge but I also think that Sona is basically right, the Sonak would most likely be removed and compensated for, not at least via superior access to whatever happens to the particles once they are extracted.
I think this "fuck property rights when a few people have resources which would benefit everybody" angle is where Sonak is coming from but alas, this is entirely hypothetical.

What the Federation does is, as Picard points out when he talks with Dougherty, an act of theft and kidnapping. We have a name for a powerful political entity taking something from a weak political entity: imperialism. If anybody can point out an historical example of a strong nation taking something from weak nation without raping it at the same time I am all ears.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 04:13 PM   #242
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

horatio83 wrote: View Post
I totally agree that in this instance the case would take some time and land before a judge but I also think that Sona is basically right, the Sonak would most likely be removed and compensated for, not at least via superior access to whatever happens to the particles once they are extracted.
I think this "fuck property rights when a few people have resources which would benefit everybody" angle is where Sonak is coming from but alas, this is entirely hypothetical.

What the Federation does is, as Picard points out when he talks with Dougherty, an act of theft and kidnapping. We have a name for a powerful political entity taking something from a weak political entity: imperialism. If anybody can point out an historical example of a strong nation taking something from weak nation without raping it at the same time I am all ears.

it would be hard to come up with a historical example because none would be very analogous. We're not talking about a fuel source like oil, or something similar.

The analogy would be more like a small island with a primitive tribe on it, and the island has the cure for cancer on it, but in order to get to the cure, the island would have to be made uninhabitable for a long time, and the tribe has no interest in the outside world and refuses to relocate.

And yes, you've summed up my attitude pretty well, actually. Property rights are important, but they take a back seat when the issue becomes "property rights of a few vs. the good of a much larger number."
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 04:23 PM   #243
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

I am very sympathetic to this attitude. In political terms it is basically an advocation of a strong, centralized progressive government (as opposed to lefties with slightly anarchic leaning who only play this game of "we gotta keep power in check"; no, we gotta take power) and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.

I now think that the crucial dividing issue is my focus on rules and your focus on outcomes.
If I understand you correctly your point is that the Baku are screwed anyway. The Sona wanna take their planet and if they don't do it the Romulans or Klingons will do it sooner or later. The hippies are simply crushed so even a bad deal with the Federation is better for them.
My point is that the Feds have to play by the book. They are basically a soft power like the EU, not expanding via applying force but via being attractive. If they start to just take planets and rationalize it via correctly saying that the inhabitants are better off than if they had become conquered by the Romulans or Klingons they break their rules and ruin their reputation.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 04:30 PM   #244
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

horatio83 wrote: View Post
I am very sympathetic to this attitude. In political terms it is basically an advocation of a strong, centralized progressive government (as opposed to lefties with slightly anarchic leaning who only play this game of "we gotta keep power in check"; no, we gotta take power) and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.

I now think that the crucial dividing issue is my focus on rules and your focus on outcomes.
If I understand you correctly your point is that the Baku are screwed anyway. The Sona wanna take their planet and if they don't do it the Romulans or Klingons will do it sooner or later. The hippies are simply crushed so even a bad deal with the Federation is better for them.
My point is that the Feds have to play by the book. They are basically a soft power like the EU, not expanding via applying force but via being attractive. If they start to just take planets and rationalize it via correctly saying that the inhabitants are better off than if they had become conquered by the Romulans or Klingons they break their rules and ruin their reputation.

yeah, that sums it up nicely. My view is the Baku are screwed anyway, the Federation might as well benefit from the situation rather than the Son'a alone, or some other power in the quadrant.

I'm a pragmatist and a consequentialist.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:16 PM   #245
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

horatio83 wrote: View Post
and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.
You mean the treaty the Cardassians wasted no time violating and it took a freaking Cardassian to let the federation know about that, and still they only gave a minor token response that didn't really solve anything and pretty much only cracked down on people who probably weren't even their citizens anymore because they didn't like the federation just sticking its head in the sand and ignoring the problem. becuase that kind sounds like a crappy treaty, seeing as the federation didn't seem interested in making sure the Cardassians actually followed its terms.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:18 PM   #246
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

But it sure prevented the Federation and Cardassia from ever going to war again.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:20 PM   #247
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

sonak wrote: View Post
The analogy would be more like a small island with a primitive tribe on it, and the island has the cure for cancer on it, but in order to get to the cure, the island would have to be made uninhabitable for a long time, and the tribe has no interest in the outside world and refuses to relocate.
Except in this case there would be 8 to 10 other potential cures to cancer already available that their not pursuing becuase they never follow up on for some reason and the society in question that would benefit from it never really cared about it before that point in time.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:22 PM   #248
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

R. Star wrote: View Post
But it sure prevented the Federation and Cardassia from ever going to war again.
The funny thing is when you think about the consequences it actually contributed to the Dominion War since the Maquis kicking the Cardassians asses (really why is the federation worried about war with these people seeing as the suck at it) was what sold them on Dukat's let's join the Dominion idea.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:25 PM   #249
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
R. Star wrote: View Post
But it sure prevented the Federation and Cardassia from ever going to war again.
The funny thing is when you think about the consequences it actually contributed to the Dominion War since the Maquis kicking the Cardassians asses (really why is the federation worried about war with these people seeing as the suck at it) was what sold them on Dukat's let's join the Dominion idea.
Really... somehow I think the Klingons had more to do with that than a few disgruntled colonists with freighters and shuttles. Oh wait, the Founders started that war too. Either way, they willingly joined up and started a revanchist war against the Federation. Dukat never really mentioned the Klingons at all while he was in power aside from tactically.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:30 PM   #250
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.
You mean the treaty the Cardassians wasted no time violating and it took a freaking Cardassian to let the federation know about that, and still they only gave a minor token response that didn't really solve anything and pretty much only cracked down on people who probably weren't even their citizens anymore because they didn't like the federation just sticking its head in the sand and ignoring the problem. becuase that kind sounds like a crappy treaty, seeing as the federation didn't seem interested in making sure the Cardassians actually followed its terms.
Of course it wasn't OK that the Cardassians tried to arm their settlers in the demilitarized zone. If I remember correctly the Federation eventually decided to monitor the DMZ better and prevent weapon deployments.
But the people who later partly became Maquis could have simply left their colonies instead of stubbornly persist to continue to live their under Cardassian rule and, big surprise, being bullied by them.

I am firmly on the side of the Federation. Sure, they reacted too late to the Cardassian misdeeds in the DMZ but the Maquis did something far worse, they threatened the hard-earned peace and made it much harder for the Feds to solve this problem: we know from Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that sometimes the best way to defend yourself is not via picking up arms as this gives your enemy an easy excuse to crush you.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the colonists. They have chosen a hard life on the border and their life's work is materialized in their colony so they naturally don't wanna leave. But I also gotta pull a Spock here, their interests matters less than maintaining peace ... and while the Feds didn't expect beforehand that the Cardassians would lead a proxy war via arming their settlers they knew perfectly well that living under Cardassian rule will be nasty for those of their settlers who decide to stay.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger

Last edited by horatio83; April 28 2013 at 05:42 PM.
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:45 PM   #251
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
and one example in Trek would be the peace treaty with the Cardassians which I strongly approve of. Peace for trillions is more important than the property rights of millions of settlers.
You mean the treaty the Cardassians wasted no time violating and it took a freaking Cardassian to let the federation know about that, and still they only gave a minor token response that didn't really solve anything and pretty much only cracked down on people who probably weren't even their citizens anymore because they didn't like the federation just sticking its head in the sand and ignoring the problem. becuase that kind sounds like a crappy treaty, seeing as the federation didn't seem interested in making sure the Cardassians actually followed its terms.
Of course it wasn't OK that the Cardassians tried to arm their settlers in the demilitarized zone. If I remember correctly the Federation eventually decided to monitor the DMZ better and prevent weapon deployments.
But the people who later partly became Maquis could have simply left their colonies instead of stubbornly persist to continue to live their under Cardassian rule and, big surprise, being bullied by them.

I am firmly on the side of the Federation. Sure, they reacted too late to the Cardassian misdeeds in the DMZ but the Maquis did something far worse, they threatened the hard-earned peace and made it much harder for the Feds to solve this problem: we know from Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that sometimes the best way to defend yourself is not via picking up arms as this gives your enemy an easy excuse to crush you.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the colonists. They have chosen a hard life on the border and their life's work is materialized in their colony so they naturally don't wanna leave. But I also gotta pull a Spock here, their interests matters less than maintaining peace ... and while the Feds didn't expect beforehand that the Cardassians would lead a proxy war via arming their settlers they knew perfectly well that living under Cardassian rule will be nasty for those of their settlers who decide to stay.
Let's see... the Maquis colonists were getting raped by Cardassians, poised at public replicators, assaulted on numerous occasions as a daily occurrence. And your proposal is for them to peacefully protest and politely ask them to stop? That sure worked well for Jesus, King and Ghandi... wait, they were all killed.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 05:56 PM   #252
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

If Ghandi had attacked the Brits he would have provided them with an easy excuse to club him and his followers down. Ghandi did something far more "violent" than people with guns, he refused the authority of the Brits and thus changed the social order. Armed resistance seems revolutionary on the surface yet would have achieved nothing.

Back to Trek, the violence of the Maquis made it possible for the Cardassians to rationalize their military presence in the DMZ and supply their settlers even more easily with weapons ... which again made it harder for the UFP to finally solve this issue. And it should be obvious to each and every Maquis that only the UFP can solve it.

We are of course familiar with the Intifada argument from Palestine, i.e. the Maquis had to do something in order to create spotlight, otherwise the Federation would have never addressed the problem. I think that this is correct but only as long as the fighters realize that the only goal of violence is to create attention. Just like many people in Palestine haven't understood this most of the Maquis didn't understand it either which is why I am ultimately against their violence.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 06:02 PM   #253
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

horatio83 wrote: View Post
I am firmly on the side of the Federation. Sure, they reacted too late to the Cardassian misdeeds in the DMZ
And there in lies the problem they expected a group that had no problem defying a prior peace agreement to be totally trustworthy this time and didn't bother to keep checking to make sure they stay honest.

Which is why this treaty sounds like those impotent air fairy arms reduction agreements signed after World War I that didn't do squat in the long term.

but the Maquis did something far worse, they threatened the hard-earned peace and made it much harder for the Feds to solve this problem:
So its their fault becuase they didn't like getting killed while the federation twiddled its thumbs?

we know from Jesus, Gandhi and Martin Luther King that sometimes the best way to defend yourself is not via picking up arms as this gives your enemy an easy excuse to crush you.
And we know from recent history that that actually doesn't always work, hell the main reason it worked in Egypt was that the military refused to take any actions against the protesters.

their interests matters less than maintaining peace
Which it didn't mostly becuase the federation basically let the Klingons do whatever to hell they want with token resistance.

... and while the Feds didn't expect beforehand that the Cardassians would lead a proxy war via arming their settlers
Which they probably should have seeing as how the Cardassians had no problem trying to secretly rearm after the war, and the whole Circle business on Bajor showing that they have no problem doing under handed things to get what they want.

they knew perfectly well that living under Cardassian rule will be nasty for those of their settlers who decide to stay.
To be fair the had a Cardassian Gul telling some of them that as long as they don't cause trouble they wouldn't be bothered and seeing as the federation trusted the Cardassians without question why shouldn't they, Except again the Cardassians weren't very trust worthy were they.
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 06:04 PM   #254
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

That same Cardassian Gul, Evek was hinted to be the one supplying weapons to the Cardassian colonists and later fabricated charges of terrorism against O'brien. Real trustworthy guy.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28 2013, 06:15 PM   #255
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Did Picard make the right decision with the Son'a/Baku

The Cardassians are as trustworthy as the Romulans. So what? It certainly doesn't imply that the peace treaty is worthless. Or do you trust everybody you make a contract with?

As I already said, the error of the Federation was to monitor the DMZ not as well enough as e.g. the neutral zone with the Romulans. better supervision was necessary ... but prolonging hostilities, be it via no peace with the Cardassians at all or via the little war of the Maquis are not better options.

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
And we know from recent history that that actually doesn't always work, hell the main reason it worked in Egypt was that the military refused to take any actions against the protesters.
I don't follow you here. You claim that peaceful resistance hasn't worked in recent history and then provide an example which shows that it has?
I don't claim by the way that peaceful resistance is ALWAYS the right way to proceed. Take 1789 France, there was no other way besides cutting of the head of the king and crushing the counter-revolutionary resistance.
But I fail to see the benefits of the actions of the Maquis besides providing spotlight. If you are aware of any others I am all ears.
__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger
horatio83 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 07:53 AM.

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