doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
Don't watch it then.
I do not like Grey's Anatomy. I certainly don't go to Grey'sAnatomyBBS and start a thread to complain about all the ways I do not like it.
You know what i do instead?
I don't watch Grey's Anatomy.
DS9 = WORST Star Trek Series EVER
- Thread starter Tidus79001
- Start date
Don't watch it then.
I do not like Grey's Anatomy. I certainly don't go to Grey'sAnatomyBBS and start a thread to complain about all the ways I do not like it.
You know what i do instead?
I don't watch Grey's Anatomy.
And Voyager didn't ? I didn't find it's cast or writing stood up, but it was the big reset button at the end of each episode I struggled with most.
I don't think I am alone in that after TOS and TNG I'd had my fill of exploration and 'planet of the week'. I wasn't all that fond of seasons one and two, but it grew on me. The development of a few species and the serialised approach were refreshing, but the political aspect was the icing on the cake for me.
Voyager and most of Enterprise went back to 'boldly going' and that wasn't to my taste. I watched them, and enjoyed them to some extent, but the exploring thing really has been done to death...
That's why people keep making the same mistakes again and again until something really bad happens to them.
Pegasus Riker thinks getting away with it is nifty.
Aren't we all?
Of course Sisko in "For the Uniform" is troubling. There'd be something wrong with an audience that wasn't troubled by it. But put it in contemporary terms. A terrorist groups gets its hands on nuclear weapons and blows up a city in a country that we have a treaty with. Now through special ops we have the opportunity to blow up the village of the terrorists. There are some civilians, including children, there too, but if we don't take that shot it might be ages or never before the terrorists are stopped. Would you be surprised if a US military commander took the shot? Okay, in today's world, the military commander would almost certainly ask for clearance from higher authority including the president. But imagining this was in an age when instant communication with national command wasn't possible, it wouldn't surprise me at all.
In rules of engagement Sisko lectures Worf about not putting civilians at risk even at the cost of our (starfleet personnel) lives. At the very least you could admit that he's insane. About as much insane as Dukat in waltz. And the fact that Dax is a spineless toady in that episode is not to make things look any better.
Insane? More like duplicitous. However, Rules of Engagement concentrated on Worf's carelessness, whereas Sisko was deliberate in For the Uniform. And he made the choice that many generals made during WWII: to attack the enemy's factories, settlements, and homes, even when it was clear that the people who would be killed were not themselves fighters. I'm glad that the episode introduces some skepticism about Sisko's own decision. If his decision causes us revulsion, it cannot be considered atypical, and it ought to be recognized as the type of choice military leaders make.
Why do I keep hitting a wall with you guys? Sisko dropped deadly poison on children. What part of that statement is not getting through?
43,000 civilians--surely many children--died in Operation Gomorrah in 1943 by American and British bombers. This fact does not exonerate Sisko, but it puts his actions into perspective: civilian death as often considered necessary and normal, especially if there is a retributive aspect. Furthermore, Sisko asked for the location of a "Maquis colony." What that means is not necessarily clear, but the fact that its alignment is so easily identified would suggest that it is more than just a place where humans have settled.
I am sorry but this has nothing to do with Sisko as a member of Starfleet, supposed to uphold a set of principles and directives. Your example is about as relevant as Genghis Khan or Julius Caesar.
Sisko violated the principles of HIS TIME, of HIS STARFLEET, principles that not so long before he was lecturing Worf about and I don't really care what Alexander the Great would have done in a similar situation.
I believe Kirk made the same tit-for-tat decision on Neural.
"Tit-for-tat" could mean anything. Did Kirk try to kill children? An emphatic NO on that one.
You're trying to bury the essential under a ton of superfluous remarks.
What's next? "I believe Archer wore a shirt of a similar color once."
No, I'm merely putting it all in perspective and context: what happens in real life and in the show. The fact that children may have died in Sisko's attack has no clear hold on the moral debate over his actions. And yes, his actions and decisions deserve scrutiny. Civilians die in war, and their deaths are often considered justifiable. Generals won't hesistate to attack a target just because because people who either have not or cannot consent to the conflict are present. In universe, SF's record of arresting and prosecuting people who make decisions based upon one or other understanding of Realpolitik is very weak. And to be clear, the Federation never put Worf on trial for destroying the transport. The Klingons asked for a hearing for extradition.
The point being that Sisko HIMSELF, not starfleet, not the Klingons, said that worf was at fault. And a few months later he turns around and commits a deliberate attack on children. Cant' you see that Sisko's action is ten times worse than Worf's? In worf's case it was an accident, in Worf's case he was having nightmares about it. Sisko has neither extenuating circumstances and he's even guiltier still since as worf's commanding officer, he should have known better.
Do you realize now how much worse Sisko's situation is than Worf's?
I don't believe that hypocrisy is outlawed in the Federation. I also don't believe that it is possible to separate the darkness from the light, as Silaran Prin insisted.
