RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,693
Posts: 5,213,460
Members: 24,208
Currently online: 803
Newest member: meshman63


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 > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9 2012, 04:40 AM   #31
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
MacLeod wrote: View Post
3.>With the Ba'ku the orders were based on a false assumption. Once it became known that the Sona and Ba'ku where the same race. the Prime Directive kicked in. i.e Starfleet officers should take all steps to avoid becoming invovled in the internal affairs of other races.
What "false assumption? Anyone on the surface of the planet would be killed when the Federation and the Sona harvested the particles in the rings. Whether the Baku and Sona have (or don't have) "internal affairs" doesn't change that fact. The Baku had to leave. Yes, the Federation should have initially asked them to go under their own power, but they did have to go.

Hard to see how the Prime Directive would "kick in." Once it is realized that the Baku are both refuges and a warp capable culture, the Prime Directive is irrelavant. And once the Baku and the Sona are seen as one people, that just means that the Baku have somewhere to relocate to (a Sona planet), off of the Federation planet that they reside upon.

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Or do you in general force people to do your bidding when you think you know what's best for them?
If the Baku remained on the surface, the harvesting of the particles would have killed them. If a police officer encounters a person in a building about to be demolished, if a firefighter encounters a person in a building that is burning, they don't ask that persons permission before removing them.

Relocating the Baku was for their safety.

And if the Federation Council, after their review, didn't continue the process of harvesting the rings particle (after finally removing the Baku), how many of them would end up in prison?

Certainly after the general public found out that the Council deigned the Federation of the health advantages of the particles, just so that a small number of pretty people could live undisturbed in a single small valley, the majority of the Council would be remove from positions of power.

You know that "never ask when you can take" is a Ferengi and not a Federation rule, do you?
What do you mean "take?" It was a Federation planet and they were Federation particles. Who were they supposed to have asked?

BillJ wrote: View Post
If the S'ona simply wanted to exterminate the Ba'ku ...
The thing is, they didn't. The Sona went out of their way through the majority of the story to prevent harming the Baku.


The planet lies in Federation territory. Doesn't imply that they have supreme power over it and its inhabitants. Actually the UFP has no power over Ba'ku, the planet as well as the people, at all. It is their duty to leave them alone, not mess with them, not violate them, not steal from them, not kidnap them. I grow really tried of having to point out that all these things are serious crimes.

Why do you defend the So'na? They stabbed the Federation in the back and have been eager to kill the Ba'ku once the Feds have not been looking ... and they would certainly not have shared the medical benefits of the particles with anybody.
If you wanna defend such wickedness, go ahead, but don't expect it to be the basis for a serious discussion. I doubt you'd want to talk with me if I claimed that Nero had been such a lovely fellow.



BillJ wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post

You can defend Dougherty and the So'na all you like and imagine a grand-scale invasion of the Federation to rationalize it, Picard did the right thing.
INS is not a complicated movie where it is unclear who is right and who is wrong (the Heart of Darkness version would have been more interesting precisely because it wouldn't have been a straightforward moral tale), it is a simply movie like ST09. Not as bad but still as simple.
The only way you can see Insurrection as a straight forward moral tale is if you turn your brain completely off.
It was designed to be nothing else. Your large scale intergalactic war about the planet is a lovely idea but it is not part of the movie. I like loose readings of a text but not when they claim to be more and disavow that they are just loose readings.
__________________
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 January 9 2012, 04:56 AM   #32
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
Sometimes there cannot peace between nations, if a particularly bad regime exists is power in one of these nations. As long as the Nazis controlled Germany, there was never going to be peace between Germany and its neighbours. The same deal with Cardassia, as long as Cardassia was controlled by a military, there would never be peace between cardassia and the Federation, there was only peace after that government was gone.
You cannot compare intraspecies and interspecies issues. I am all for waging war against imperialist forces like the nazis. In the fictional world of Trek on the other hand there are a lot of folks who want the whole galaxy for themselves. Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, the Dominion, even the Ferengi aspire to control everything and everyone. Yet peace, often a fragile one, with the Federation is possible and preferable from the view of the UFP. The reason should be obvious, there are so many of them! You cannot wage war against a dozens of species who have an agenda of total domination. It would be extremely bloody, extremely costly and sooner or later make you resemble your enemy more and more and the lines written in your constitution less and less. We saw what Federation officers have been willing to do during the Dominion War.

None of this doesn't imply that the peace treaty between the Federation and the Caradassians is perfect. The logic is probably a pretty cruel one, accept a few issues in the DMZ in order to prevent another war with millions of casualties. That's a natural problem of managing large political entity like the Federation and the Maquis had a point, they had to suffer such that other people did not have to.
__________________
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 January 9 2012, 04:59 AM   #33
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

horatio83 wrote: View Post

None of this doesn't imply that the peace treaty between the Federation and the Caradassians is perfect. The logic is probably a pretty cruel one, accept a few issues in the DMZ in order to prevent another war with millions of casualties. Same with the cloaking device and the Rommies, accept a long-term strategic disadvantage for the sake of peace.


You're a unique one, horatio83.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 05:03 AM   #34
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

If you refer to my acceptance of such trade-offs in one case and not another, the difference is that here the Federation decided about Federation citizens whereas in the Ba'ku issue the Federation decided the fate of non-Federation citizens.
If there had been a war your government might have the right to redraw the border lines and force you to move. If oil is found under your house your government might also have the right to force you to move and compensate you for it but only your government and not any other government.
__________________
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 January 9 2012, 05:10 AM   #35
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

horatio83 wrote: View Post
If you refer to my acceptance of such trade-offs in one case and not another, the difference is that here the Federation decided about Federation citizens whereas in the Ba'ku issue the Federation decided the fate of non-Federation citizens.
If there had been a war your government might have the right to redraw the border lines and force you to move. If oil is found under your house your government might also have the right to force you to move and compensate you for it but only your government and not any other government.
Problem is this...

The settlers of Dorvan V left Earth two centuries prior, which would have put it around the beginnings of the Federation. If they left Earth for good it could be seen as them renouncing their citizenship. If they renounced their Earth citizenship prior to the formation of the Federation, their citizenship could be in doubt.

So the Federation may have given away a world that wasn't theirs to give away...
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 05:13 AM   #36
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

horatio83 wrote: View Post
The Overlord wrote: View Post
Sometimes there cannot peace between nations, if a particularly bad regime exists is power in one of these nations. As long as the Nazis controlled Germany, there was never going to be peace between Germany and its neighbours. The same deal with Cardassia, as long as Cardassia was controlled by a military, there would never be peace between cardassia and the Federation, there was only peace after that government was gone.
You cannot compare intraspecies and interspecies issues. I am all for waging war against imperialist forces like the nazis. In the fictional world of Trek on the other hand there are a lot of folks who want the whole galaxy for themselves. Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, the Dominion, even the Ferengi aspire to control everything and everyone. Yet peace, often a fragile one, with the Federation is possible and preferable from the view of the UFP. The reason should be obvious, there are so many of them! You cannot wage war against a dozens of species who have an agenda of total domination. It would be extremely bloody, extremely costly and sooner or later make you resemble your enemy more and more and the lines written in your constitution less and less. We saw what Federation officers have been willing to do during the Dominion War.

None of this doesn't imply that the peace treaty between the Federation and the Caradassians is perfect. The logic is probably a pretty cruel one, accept a few issues in the DMZ in order to prevent another war with millions of casualties. That's a natural problem of managing large political entity like the Federation and the Maquis had a point, they had to suffer such that other people did not have to.
And the Romulans didn't honor that treaty either, the Federation did not develop cloaking tech and the Romulans did everything besides open war fare to undermine the peace between them and the Federation. I don't see how planning to invade to Vulcan is abiding by a peace agreement. Sometimes I think the Federation has the worst diplomats ever, where their whole strategy is to give the other side everything it wants and hope they won't come back with more insane demands later.

Like I said before a contract where one side doesn't honor it isn't worth the paper its printed on, if you sign a peace treaty and the other side has no intention of honoring it, its worthless.

Also considering civilizations in Star Trek were often supposed to allegories for nation states in the real world, I think we should be comparing these civilizations to real world nation states.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 05:19 AM   #37
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

BillJ wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
If you refer to my acceptance of such trade-offs in one case and not another, the difference is that here the Federation decided about Federation citizens whereas in the Ba'ku issue the Federation decided the fate of non-Federation citizens.
If there had been a war your government might have the right to redraw the border lines and force you to move. If oil is found under your house your government might also have the right to force you to move and compensate you for it but only your government and not any other government.
Problem is this...

The settlers of Dorvan V left Earth two centuries prior, which would have put it around the beginnings of the Federation. If they left Earth for good it could be seen as them renouncing their citizenship. If they renounced their Earth citizenship prior to the formation of the Federation, their citizenship could be in doubt.

So the Federation may have given away a world that wasn't theirs to give away...
That's the conflict I mentioned earlier, even if they are Federation citizens according to some Federation laws they definitely do not perceive them as subjects of the UFP.
Same with many settlers on the Cardassian border, they live a harsh life in the "outer rim" beyond the comforts of the "core worlds", they are proud of whatever they have created there and they don't take order from anyone but themselves ... until one day the bureaucrats far away decide that their world is no longer theirs. Their world is probably too small to send a representative to the council so they feel disempowered.

It is not clear what the best way is, whether the Feds or the Maquis is right or whether there should be third options. That's why we love the Maquis stories, isn't it, shades of grey and so on.



The Overlord wrote: View Post
And the Romulans didn't honor that treaty either, the Federation did not develop cloaking tech and the Romulans did everything besides open war fare to undermine the peace between them and the Federation. I don't see how planning to invade to Vulcan is abiding by a peace agreement. Sometimes I think the Federation has the worst diplomats ever, where their whole strategy is to give the other side everything it wants and hope they won't come back with more insane demands later.

Like I said before a contract where one side doesn't honor it isn't worth the paper its printed on, if you sign a peace treaty and the other side has no intention of honoring it, its worthless.

Also considering civilizations in Star Trek were often supposed to allegories for nation states in the real world, I think we should be comparing these civilizations to real world nation states.
There have been some border incidents, some plots and the Vulcan "Trojan Horse" mission but war between the Romulan Empire and the Federation did not ever break out again. For me this sounds like a success. Yet if this is a bad deal for the Federation in your eyes, what do you suggest they should do differently?
About your nation state allegory, would you mind to elaborate a bit on it? This sounds interesting.
__________________
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 January 9 2012, 05:34 AM   #38
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

horatio83 wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
If you refer to my acceptance of such trade-offs in one case and not another, the difference is that here the Federation decided about Federation citizens whereas in the Ba'ku issue the Federation decided the fate of non-Federation citizens.
If there had been a war your government might have the right to redraw the border lines and force you to move. If oil is found under your house your government might also have the right to force you to move and compensate you for it but only your government and not any other government.
Problem is this...

The settlers of Dorvan V left Earth two centuries prior, which would have put it around the beginnings of the Federation. If they left Earth for good it could be seen as them renouncing their citizenship. If they renounced their Earth citizenship prior to the formation of the Federation, their citizenship could be in doubt.

So the Federation may have given away a world that wasn't theirs to give away...
That's the conflict I mentioned earlier, even if they are Federation citizens according to some Federation laws they definitely do not perceive them as subjects of the UFP.
Same with many settlers on the Cardassian border, they live a harsh life in the "outer rim" beyond the comforts of the "core worlds", they are proud of whatever they have created there and they don't take order from anyone but themselves ... until one day the bureaucrats far away decide that their world is no longer theirs. Their world is probably too small to send a representative to the council so they feel disempowered.

It is not clear what the best way is, whether the Feds or the Maquis is right or whether there should be third options. That's why we love the Maquis stories, isn't it, shades of grey and so on.



The Overlord wrote: View Post
And the Romulans didn't honor that treaty either, the Federation did not develop cloaking tech and the Romulans did everything besides open war fare to undermine the peace between them and the Federation. I don't see how planning to invade to Vulcan is abiding by a peace agreement. Sometimes I think the Federation has the worst diplomats ever, where their whole strategy is to give the other side everything it wants and hope they won't come back with more insane demands later.

Like I said before a contract where one side doesn't honor it isn't worth the paper its printed on, if you sign a peace treaty and the other side has no intention of honoring it, its worthless.

Also considering civilizations in Star Trek were often supposed to allegories for nation states in the real world, I think we should be comparing these civilizations to real world nation states.
There have been some border incidents, some plots and the Vulcan "Trojan Horse" mission but war between the Romulan Empire and the Federation did not ever break out again. For me this sounds like a success. Yet if this is a bad deal for the Federation in your eyes, what do you suggest they should do differently?
And if Spock hadn't revealed the Romulans were about to invade Vulcan and the treaty would have been the worst kind of failure. A treaty that almost fails and only succeeds by chance, is not a good treaty.

What I do, after the attempted invasion of Vulcan, I would have said the treaty is now on thin ice and if there are any more "plots", any more ploys to start a conflict or any other bad faith measures by the Romulan Empire, the treaty would be void and the Federation would start developing its own cloaking tech. If the Romulan government isn't acting in good faith, then I see the treaty as worthless, either the Romulans will have to act in good faith or they will show their true colors, that they had no real intention of honoring the treaty and that has always been a sham, but they won't be able to hide behind it anymore, expecting other people to play by the rules, while they just ignore them.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 05:50 AM   #39
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

This would have implied more tense relations with the Empire and most likely far less cooperation before and during the Dominion War, i.e. the Defiant would not have been equipped with a Romulan cloaking device.
I don't see any benefits as I doubt that the Romulans stop to be Romulans just because of a bit of Federation sabre-rattling. Sure, they might not do something like the Trojan Horse mission again but they will surely reallocate their forces and attention upon the Federation border. Spock's underground movement will have a much harder time to flourish in such a tense 'drums of war' climate.
After all you don't talk about a minor treaty, the Treaty of Algeron is THE peace treaty between the UFP and the Empire.

Another problem is the lack of evidence of the Trojan Horse mission, the Rommies blew the ships up. Sure, both sides know very well what really happened but appearances matter, the Romulans can pretend to not know what the Feds are talking about and portray the recent developments as unilateral peace-endangering behaviour in front of other major powers like the Klingons who don't know about the Trojan Horse mission unless they have very fine intelligence services.

It's a tricky game and one has to play it as cunningly as the Romulans. Brute force, aggressive posturing or blunt threats seem like the wrong way to deal with this silent enemy. In my opinion endangering the peace treaty just to prove a point, better a truthful war than a fake peace, is foolish in my opinion. Of course it is a fake peace, of course you always have to be vigilante with the Romulans. But it is a form of peace nonetheless and it is preferable to war. You can't expect more than a fake peace if you deal with people whose main dogma is unlimited expansion.
__________________
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; January 9 2012 at 06:00 AM.
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 07:13 AM   #40
Mr. Laser Beam
Fleet Admiral
 
Mr. Laser Beam's Avatar
 
Location: The visitor's bullpen
View Mr. Laser Beam's Twitter Profile
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

BillJ wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
If you refer to my acceptance of such trade-offs in one case and not another, the difference is that here the Federation decided about Federation citizens whereas in the Ba'ku issue the Federation decided the fate of non-Federation citizens.
If there had been a war your government might have the right to redraw the border lines and force you to move. If oil is found under your house your government might also have the right to force you to move and compensate you for it but only your government and not any other government.
Problem is this...

The settlers of Dorvan V left Earth two centuries prior, which would have put it around the beginnings of the Federation. If they left Earth for good it could be seen as them renouncing their citizenship. If they renounced their Earth citizenship prior to the formation of the Federation, their citizenship could be in doubt.

So the Federation may have given away a world that wasn't theirs to give away...
AFAIK, Dorvan V was indeed said to be a Federation world in Federation territory. So however questionable that decision may have been (and we really have no idea, since the exact terms of the treaty were never revealed onscreen), the Federation was within its rights to cede it to the Cardassians.

And it should be noted that the Federation was willing to help the colonists move. That is part of eminent domain even today - if the government takes your house, they have to pay you for it and assist you in finding a new home. Same story here. While I can certainly understand why the natives of Dorvan V didn't want to abandon their homes, it's not as if the Federation was leaving them to rot. It was their own idea to stay and subject themselves to Cardassian oversight. Not saying they deserved the subsequent treatment (from the Cardassians) that they got, but neither is the Federation responsible for that treatment.

As for the Ba'ku:

__________________
Taysiders in Space. In amungst ye!

"Set phasers tae malky!"
Mr. Laser Beam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 07:33 AM   #41
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

horatio83 wrote: View Post
This would have implied more tense relations with the Empire and most likely far less cooperation before and during the Dominion War, i.e. the Defiant would not have been equipped with a Romulan cloaking device.
If there was no treaty, the Federation could just make their own cloaking device and the romulans were not helpful in the lead up to the Dominion war, until the Federation used some rather dirty tactics to trick the Romulans into the war. The Romulans were not helpful, period.

horatio83 wrote: View Post
I don't see any benefits as I doubt that the Romulans stop to be Romulans just because of a bit of Federation sabre-rattling. Sure, they might not do something like the Trojan Horse mission again but they will surely reallocate their forces and attention upon the Federation border. Spock's underground movement will have a much harder time to flourish in such a tense 'drums of war' climate.
After all you don't talk about a minor treaty, the Treaty of Algeron is THE peace treaty between the UFP and the Empire.
And in the several years between Unification and when Romulus blew up, how successful was this underground group at changing anything, it seems like they failed at their objective. By Star trek: Nemesis, the Romulan military seemed more willing to start a war, not less.

Its a peace the Empire undermined all the time, not a true peace. Why should the Federation believe that the Romulans wouldn't pull stunt like the one they tried to pull in "Unification". Wouldn't people in the federation have become far more distrustful of the Romulans and see the peace treaty as the sham that it truly.

horatio83 wrote: View Post
Another problem is the lack of evidence of the Trojan Horse mission, the Rommies blew the ships up. Sure, both sides know very well what really happened but appearances matter, the Romulans can pretend to not know what the Feds are talking about and portray the recent developments as unilateral peace-endangering behaviour in front of other major powers like the Klingons who don't know about the Trojan Horse mission unless they have very fine intelligence services.
There was enough circumstantial evidence that led the Enterprise to discover this plot in the first place, Spock sending that message and the romulans blowing up those ships are pretty clear signs of guilt. Appearances are strong to have the diplomatic advantage after that, but the Federation did not exercise.

horatio83 wrote: View Post
It's a tricky game and one has to play it as cunningly as the Romulans. Brute force, aggressive posturing or blunt threats seem like the wrong way to deal with this silent enemy. In my opinion endangering the peace treaty just to prove a point, better a truthful war than a fake peace, is foolish in my opinion. Of course it is a fake peace, of course you always have to be vigilante with the Romulans. But it is a form of peace nonetheless and it is preferable to war. You can't expect more than a fake peace if you deal with people whose main dogma is unlimited expansion.
And I think its foolish to give up an important strategic advantage for a peace treaty the other side has no real respect for. That's not diplomacy, that's just knuckling under.

Plus if the Federation simply pulled out the treaty, that wouldn't be an act of war, that would just mean that particular treaty is at an end. Its not like the Federation would just start blasting Romulan ships after that, the treaty ended because the Romulans have been acting in bad faith. They can always sign a new treaty and actually honor it and if the Romulans start shooting, the war would be their fault, not the Federation's. All the Federation did was pull out of the treaty because the other side was not acting in good faith. The Romulans seemed to want avoid a direct conflict, preferring to try to draw the Federation into a conflict, it seems unlikely they would go for a direct conflict.

Sometimes you have to stand up to a bully, otherwise the bully thinks he just push you around whenever he wants.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 07:43 AM   #42
The Overlord
Captain
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
horatio83 wrote: View Post
If you refer to my acceptance of such trade-offs in one case and not another, the difference is that here the Federation decided about Federation citizens whereas in the Ba'ku issue the Federation decided the fate of non-Federation citizens.
If there had been a war your government might have the right to redraw the border lines and force you to move. If oil is found under your house your government might also have the right to force you to move and compensate you for it but only your government and not any other government.
Problem is this...

The settlers of Dorvan V left Earth two centuries prior, which would have put it around the beginnings of the Federation. If they left Earth for good it could be seen as them renouncing their citizenship. If they renounced their Earth citizenship prior to the formation of the Federation, their citizenship could be in doubt.

So the Federation may have given away a world that wasn't theirs to give away...
AFAIK, Dorvan V was indeed said to be a Federation world in Federation territory. So however questionable that decision may have been (and we really have no idea, since the exact terms of the treaty were never revealed onscreen), the Federation was within its rights to cede it to the Cardassians.

And it should be noted that the Federation was willing to help the colonists move. That is part of eminent domain even today - if the government takes your house, they have to pay you for it and assist you in finding a new home. Same story here. While I can certainly understand why the natives of Dorvan V didn't want to abandon their homes, it's not as if the Federation was leaving them to rot. It was their own idea to stay and subject themselves to Cardassian oversight. Not saying they deserved the subsequent treatment (from the Cardassians) that they got, but neither is the Federation responsible for that treatment.

As for the Ba'ku:

The Ba'ku planet was in Federation territory, does that mean the Federation

And I have heard a lot of people say the concept of eminent domain is problematic and could be abused.

Plus doesn't seem unfair to ask a group of people who have subjected forced relocation in the past to relocate again for the benefit of a society they have never been a part of?

Again it seems really bad when Picard is willing to go to war over aliens who look exactly like white people and just sighs, but ultimately decides to relocate the aboriginals.
The Overlord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 08:24 AM   #43
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
And I think its foolish to give up an important strategic advantage for a peace treaty the other side has no real respect for. That's not diplomacy, that's just knuckling under.

Plus if the Federation simply pulled out the treaty, that wouldn't be an act of war, that would just mean that particular treaty is at an end. Its not like the Federation would just start blasting Romulan ships after that, the treaty ended because the Romulans have been acting in bad faith. They can always sign a new treaty and actually honor it and if the Romulans start shooting, the war would be their fault, not the Federation's. All the Federation did was pull out of the treaty because the other side was not acting in good faith. The Romulans seemed to want avoid a direct conflict, preferring to try to draw the Federation into a conflict, it seems unlikely they would go for a direct conflict.

Sometimes you have to stand up to a bully, otherwise the bully thinks he just push you around whenever he wants.
Foolish? The Tomed Incident lead to the Treaty of Algeron. What precisely happened is unknown but it has been pretty horrible, otherwise the Federation would not have agreed to not use cloaking devices.
Lives have been lost just like during the Earth-Romulan War and other minor incidents like the one we saw in TOS. Preventing war and the associated loss of lives is what the Federation cares about, not some heroic "standing up to the bully". In case you didn't notice, there are not merely Romulans but also Klingons, Cardassians, the Dominion, Borg, Gorn and Breen. Lots of bullies on the schoolyard and if you endanger whatever fragile peace arrangement you have with them merely for the sake of principle, such that you can self-righteously clap yourself on the shoulder and tell yourself that you stood up to the bullies, that they are responsible for the war and not you while the entire galaxy is burning you do not really care about the well-being of your citizens.

People who have not experienced the horrors of war have a hard time to understand that peace is always worth a high price.

The Romulans don't stop to be insidious, plotting manipulators just because the Feds cancel the peace treaty. You suggest that the Federation should force them to change, no matter the cost. I say, and the Feds say this as well, our duty is not to engage in bloody, idealistic crusading that might easily lead to the second Romulan War but to keep our citizens safe. So far we have dealt with their trickery fairly well, without a loss of lives. Sounds like a decent kind of peace. Not a totally sincere peace but peace nonetheless.
__________________
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 January 9 2012, 08:24 AM   #44
horatio83
Commodore
 
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

The Overlord wrote: View Post
The Ba'ku planet was in Federation territory, does that mean the Federation

And I have heard a lot of people say the concept of eminent domain is problematic and could be abused.

Plus doesn't seem unfair to ask a group of people who have subjected forced relocation in the past to relocate again for the benefit of a society they have never been a part of?

Again it seems really bad when Picard is willing to go to war over aliens who look exactly like white people and just sighs, but ultimately decides to relocate the aboriginals.
You still haven't understood that the Ba'ku are not Federation citizens whereas the Indians on Dorvan V are. The Federation has authority over the latter but not over the former. Picard merely plays by the book.
You also totally ignored that Picard does not force the Indians to do anything after they basically said that they wanna be on their own, that they don't wanna be relocated and that they give up their Federation citizenship and are willing to become subjects of the Cardassian Union.

They are by the way not "aboriginals", they moved to the planet some centuries ago, and whether they are red, white, black or yellow is totally irrelevant. You cannot say that people who are part of an ethnic group that has been nearly eradicated have special rights. If anything the descendants of the survivors of an attempted genocide should remind us that everybody has the same rights.
__________________
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; January 9 2012 at 08:45 AM.
horatio83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9 2012, 02:32 PM   #45
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Is Picard a hypocrite?

Mr. Laser Beam wrote: View Post

As for the Ba'ku:

I cannot stress how much I disagree with this interpretation. The Federation is a democratic collection of 150 plus worlds. To try and assign blame elsewhere simply ignores the fact that they wouldn't all share human values.

These novels are really old so I'm not sure spoilers are warranted...

You're telling me that a species like the Andorians, who are a dying race in the novels, wouldn't be interested in doubling the lifespans of their people while they struggle with the rampant fertility issues?

Insurrection tries to paint a black and white picture on a situation that is anything but black and white. Especially in a democratic order of worlds with wildly varying morality.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
insurrection, picard

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 01:42 AM.

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