RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,624
Posts: 5,426,666
Members: 24,810
Currently online: 503
Newest member: Rom

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


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 October 27 2013, 04:22 AM   #121
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

You mean that friendly government that had Gul Dukat as the Chief of Staff of their military?
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2013, 04:41 AM   #122
Kestrel
Vice Admiral
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Location: East Tennessee
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

And so? Point?

They were still driven to ruination by an unprovoked Klingon invasion and Dukat alone made a deal with the Devil to drive the Klingons (and some emboldened terrorists) out. Take away the Klingon invasion, and do they still accept the selling of their soul to the Dominion?

Central Command may well have drawn the Federation into another war - would the Detapa Council?

(The answer is yes, because the Founders were behind the whole thing, from Klingon invasion to weakening Central Command's position by luring the Obsidian Order on a fool's errand and wiping them out, thus allowing the Detapa Council's coup in the first place. So Gowron telling Founder-Martok he's a loon and the Khitomer Accords are more important would have just meant Founder-Gowron and the mysterious death of General Martok. Some other method would have been found. The question remains though: would Cardassia have wholeheartedly accepted signing up without the Klingon Invasion?)



ETA: Also, regarding the OP. No, absolutely not. That was just Eddington self-aggrandizing and needing to make himself and epic hero. As somebody noted, Sisko was willing to forgive and to give second chances, to Kas for example. The one time Javert decided to show mercy, the mental break drove him to suicide.

Navaros wrote: View Post
Javert is committed to justice at all costs.
Javert is committed to the law at all costs, which in his black/white world is always just.

Navaros wrote: View Post
I suspect that Sisko forgave them because they are black, yet could not forgive Eddington because he is white.
The fuck?

Navaros wrote: View Post
Furthermore, I highly doubt Javert would poison planets and/or otherwise kill/harm innocents to get his way, yet for Sisko, that is no problem.
The one time Javert showed mercy it drove him insane and he killed himself. He was also utterly unmoved by the plight of innocent Cossette when it came to upholding the law for Fantine's "crime."
__________________
"If Romeo had just masturbated a couple of times a week he would have saved both those nice families a heap of trouble."

Last edited by Kestrel; October 27 2013 at 04:57 AM.
Kestrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2013, 05:12 AM   #123
mickmike
Lieutenant Commander
 
mickmike's Avatar
 
Location: far beyond the stars
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

Even if the cardassians had not joined the dominion, or the founders sowed dissent between cardassia and the klingons there is a chance thay they may have fallen back on their old behaviour.

From the moment they signed the armistice back in 2367 the cardassians were already prepping for another war. In 'the wounded' they were using a science station as a weapons supply depot. this station was within striking distance on 3 federation sectors. despite the protests of innocence by the cardassians, picard knew that it was true and in the 'interests of peace' did nothing about it apart from telling the cardassians the federation would be 'watching'. then in 2369 the cardassians had another military build up in mcallister nebula with the intention of a surprise attack on minos korva, a federation world. the federation again let this incident slide.

the cardassians clearly didn't give a shit about the peace treaty, yet the federation was bending over backwards to appease them.
mickmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2013, 05:18 AM   #124
Kestrel
Vice Admiral
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Location: East Tennessee
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

Sure, there was a chance - there's always a chance, and it certainly seemed likely. Though it's worth noting neither of those incidents went any further.

But then, that was under Central Command. It wasn't predetermined.
__________________
"If Romeo had just masturbated a couple of times a week he would have saved both those nice families a heap of trouble."
Kestrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2013, 10:06 PM   #125
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

mickmike wrote: View Post
the federation looses all credibility by providing support to a government that as you described has a history of genocide, bullying and oppression instead of supporting their own people.
Not everything is about credibility. Yes, the Maquis were screwed over and had every right to blame the Federation as much as the Cardassians. But that doesn't automatically mean that the Federation had any better options available to it at the time, nor that starfleet should be expected to overlook direct provocations that could start a new war.

the federation could have easily taken the cardassians on in an armed conflict. i mean they went to war with the klingons over cardassia only a couple of years after the treaty was signed.
This is not even remotely proven. The Klingon war was limited in scope and time period - not at all proof of how powerful starfleet was. It also took place years later - it's entirely possible the Federation was already spending those years beefing up Starfleet in preparation for a possible round 2 with Cardassia (and later in preparation for the Dominion).

And even if the colonists had moved, would that have been enough for the cardassians? given their history, probably not. the federation gave up a lot to satisfy a government who had no real intention of maintaining the peace.
That's entirely true. But that doesn't automatically mean it was the wrong thing to do.

mickmike wrote: View Post
I was talking about hypothetically if the colonists had moved when asked to do so by the federation, would the cardassians have been happy with that, or given their history would they have taken it as a sign of weakness and asked for more concessions.
Hypothetically, the treaty was already signed by this point. Endlessly demanding more concessions would've led straight back to war, the Federation would've instantly started backing the Maquis and everyone would be saying how great they were for it and how upright and moral they were, as proven by the fact that they gave the Cardassians every chance and only went back to all out war when they were left no other choice. And possibly also how sad it was that they were so weakened by fighting Cardassia that they allowed the Dominion to waltz right over top of them.

The territories were not contested until the treaty of 2370 which stipulated that each side would exchange worlds. The colony on dorvan v for example had been establish in 2350, 20 years before the treaty and at that time was part of federation territory. The federation gave it up.
The territories were not contested until the war. Wars always create contested territories - that's the point of war. What the treaty did was determine exactly what would be done with the contested territories in order to prevent further warfare.

The cardassians forced the creation of the maquis through their actions towards the colonists. The colonists were peaceful and were not doing anything until the cardassians began to target them.
And the Federation wasn't doing all that much to seriously take down the Maquis until the Maquis started attacking Federation ships and stealing Federation supplies - and risking an instant rekindling of the war by launching biogenic weapons on a planetary scale.

mickmike wrote: View Post
Even if the cardassians had not joined the dominion, or the founders sowed dissent between cardassia and the klingons there is a chance thay they may have fallen back on their old behaviour.
...
the cardassians clearly didn't give a shit about the peace treaty, yet the federation was bending over backwards to appease them.
Yep. Because war is a pretty crappy thing, and the Federation had had enough of it. It's not an ideal attitude necessarily, but it's certainly an understandable one. And no matter how many times people want to bring up the Czechoslovakia example, it still doesn't prove that the Cardassians really were planning to, or even capable of actually overrunning the Federation the way Hitler overran Europe.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 27 2013, 10:10 PM   #126
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

mickmike wrote: View Post
if the colonists had moved when asked to do so by the federation, would the cardassians have been happy with that
I doubt they would have cared. The area was going to be Cardassian territory, whether or not there were colonists living in it.
__________________
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Mr. Laser Beam is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2013, 03:53 PM   #127
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

I just rewatched 'For the Cause' and it occurs to me that Sisko's extreme dislike of Eddington in particular - as opposed to the Maquis in general - isn't just a result of the fact that Eddington 'beat' him, or even that Eddington's betrayal happened on Sisko's watch. It was also a result of the way in which Eddington engineered everything: trying to push a hard line against Kassidy while he himself was far deeper involved than she was, and even using her as bait to get Sisko off the station.

Finding out within a few days of each other that both of them were helping the maquis right under his nose must have been a major blow to him. I'd imagine, in a lot of ways, Kassidy's betrayal hurt far worse than Eddington's, but, especially after she came in voluntarily, he couldn't help but transfer the bulk of his anger and resentment towards Eddington. And Eddington, with his ridiculous over-righteousness 'you're worse than the Borg' certainly did make it very easy to do so. It would've been easy for him to unconsciously blame Eddington for exposing Kassidy.

It could have even been a part of his own internal doubts about Federation policy re: the Maquis, with Kassidy (who was shipping medical supplies) representing an idea of the Maquis he had a hard time condemning, and Eddington, with his terrorist tactics and threats of further assaults on the Federation, representing an idea of the Maquis he could only despise. The fact that Eddington's Maquis won out over Kassidy's is what ultimately brings him down to his extreme anti-Maquis view.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2013, 04:23 PM   #128
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

It definitely was personal and not about the Maquis with Sisko. His best friend Cal Hudson pulled a similar one over his head and he let it go. His girlfriend did the same and he later married her without ever bringing it up again. So it never was the Maquis itself that irked him, but Eddington personally.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2013, 05:02 PM   #129
grendelsbayne
Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

GoRe Star wrote: View Post
It definitely was personal and not about the Maquis with Sisko. His best friend Cal Hudson pulled a similar one over his head and he let it go. His girlfriend did the same and he later married her without ever bringing it up again. So it never was the Maquis itself that irked him, but Eddington personally.
While I, obviously, agree he had personal issues with Eddington, I think you're rather overstating things here. Cal Hudson's involvement with the Maquis was completely unknown to Sisko until after Cal was already dead. It's hard to hold a grudge against a dead man.

And Kassidy's betrayal was not just handwaved out of existence. She gave herself up voluntarily and served her time.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 28 2013, 05:24 PM   #130
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
GoRe Star wrote: View Post
It definitely was personal and not about the Maquis with Sisko. His best friend Cal Hudson pulled a similar one over his head and he let it go. His girlfriend did the same and he later married her without ever bringing it up again. So it never was the Maquis itself that irked him, but Eddington personally.
While I, obviously, agree he had personal issues with Eddington, I think you're rather overstating things here. Cal Hudson's involvement with the Maquis was completely unknown to Sisko until after Cal was already dead. It's hard to hold a grudge against a dead man.

And Kassidy's betrayal was not just handwaved out of existence. She gave herself up voluntarily and served her time.
Did you not watch the Maquis? The man literally phasered Sisko when he didn't join up.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2013, 01:25 AM   #131
mickmike
Lieutenant Commander
 
mickmike's Avatar
 
Location: far beyond the stars
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
I just rewatched 'For the Cause' and it occurs to me that Sisko's extreme dislike of Eddington in particular - as opposed to the Maquis in general - isn't just a result of the fact that Eddington 'beat' him, or even that Eddington's betrayal happened on Sisko's watch. It was also a result of the way in which Eddington engineered everything: trying to push a hard line against Kassidy while he himself was far deeper involved than she was, and even using her as bait to get Sisko off the station.

Finding out within a few days of each other that both of them were helping the maquis right under his nose must have been a major blow to him. I'd imagine, in a lot of ways, Kassidy's betrayal hurt far worse than Eddington's, but, especially after she came in voluntarily, he couldn't help but transfer the bulk of his anger and resentment towards Eddington. And Eddington, with his ridiculous over-righteousness 'you're worse than the Borg' certainly did make it very easy to do so. It would've been easy for him to unconsciously blame Eddington for exposing Kassidy.

It could have even been a part of his own internal doubts about Federation policy re: the Maquis, with Kassidy (who was shipping medical supplies) representing an idea of the Maquis he had a hard time condemning, and Eddington, with his terrorist tactics and threats of further assaults on the Federation, representing an idea of the Maquis he could only despise. The fact that Eddington's Maquis won out over Kassidy's is what ultimately brings him down to his extreme anti-Maquis view.

Sisko pretty much says it himself that it's for personal reasons:


"He worked under me for a year and a half. I saw him almost every day. Read his reports. Had him to dinner. I even took him to a baseball game in the holosuite once. And I never saw it! It's my job to be a good judge of character, and what did I do? Not only did I not see it, I put him up for a promotion."
"He played his hand well."
"He played me all right. And what is my excuse? Is he a Changeling? No. Is he a being with seven lifetimes of experience? No. Is he a wormhole alien? No. He's just a man, like me. And he beat me!"
- Sisko and Dax, discussing Eddington while Sisko punches the bag

Sisko's reaction to Eddington's betrayal comes off as irrational when compared to his reaction to Cal Hudson.


Sisko and Hudson had known each other 20 years by the time of the 'the maquis pt 1'. Not only did Hudson shoot Sisko but engaged him in ship to ship combat, which could have resulted in Sisko's death even if that wasn't the intention. Sisko then lets Hudson go. Does Sisko go under cover, does he take runabouts to try and track Hudson down? No, Sisko just leaves him be and probably laments a broken friendship.


Even though Sisko had a friendship with Eddington, they weren't best buddies and Eddington wasn't part of Sisko's inner circle. So why did he get so vengeful and make it personal, because Eddington kept outsmarting him. It just makes Sisko look petty and unprofessional.
mickmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2013, 04:35 AM   #132
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

Er...the whole point was that Sisko was being petty and unprofessional with regards to Eddington. He let him get under his skin.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29 2013, 06:54 PM   #133
Tuvok
Lieutenant
 
Re: Was Sisko a Javert

DonIago wrote: View Post
Er...the whole point was that Sisko was being petty and unprofessional with regards to Eddington. He let him get under his skin.
Trust me buddy there was plenty for everyone.

Sisko flaw is his pride , which is good. Every one needs one, and maybe the fact the man he trusted turned on him.

While watching the For the Cause and for the Uniform I noted Eddington flaw is his belief in his own moral superiority , like when he was criticising the Federation { for lets be honest valid points} he sense of greater standing in the whole scheme of things.

Which is all good , when defending your home. Not so good when you start bionuking pretty much innocent colonies to regain your land. And planning to do so again and again because hey , its all good where the good guys.

None where innocent.

Not the Federation who abandoned them, needs of the many out weighs the needs of the few. Which to be honest was the right thing to do logically, because its an unfair universe and you do what you can to prevent unneeded war. In fact they could have forced the Colonists to be relocated but of course they didn't. The Federation can never be the bad guys, they just leave their citizens living next to them undefended looks less bad right ?

Not Sisko, whose pursit of Eddington was blinded by pride. And if maybe wasn't so angered could have caught him before things got to bio nuking stage.

Not the Marquis who turned from plucky defenders to terrorist bombing worlds from orbit with poison.

And certainly not Eddlington who could play the innocent and misunderstood hero all he wants, but did betray his uniform , his office, stole from the Federation, attacked unarmed transports fleeing a World he bio nuked and sneered at those he thought didn't have the bones to do what had to be done. Yet bitch about it when it's done to him.

Ironically , I don't blame the Cardassian military . Because Victim blaming is when you smear the innocent party to assign blame and deflect guilt, this is face palming when you a bunch of people living next to a group of people known for treachery , mass murder and brutality . And being surprised when said group of mass murdering bullies start in on you. When you can you know, relocate.

Space is big.
Tuvok 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 05:02 PM.

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