Please rephrase this more hyperbolically.
Opinions on Michael Eddington
- Thread starter Emperor Norton
- Start date
Please rephrase this more hyperbolically.
It wasn't hyperbolical at all, very matter of fact language on my part.
Eddington himself stated that the maquis sympathizers within the federation were harassed and persecuted I see no reason to doubt that.
The task force at the end of TNG and the Defiant hunting in the DMZ was very much in the vein of eliminating the Maquis.
Nothing I said was hyperbolical it was all supported by on-screen evidence and my own moral uprightness.
The task force at the end of TNG and the Defiant hunting in the DMZ was very much in the vein of eliminating the Maquis.
Nothing I said was hyperbolical it was all supported by on-screen evidence and my own moral uprightness.
Why on Earth should we consider Eddington to be a reliable source on this matter when it's obvious he is himself prone to speaking hyperbolically? The guy thinks he's a modern-day Jean Valjean, FFS.
Defiant was looking very specifically for Eddington, and I'm not sure what task force you're talking about. There's never a mention of eliminating the Maquis.
The very fact that you would claim your information is supported by your own "moral uprightness" is perhaps the biggest indicator to me that it's suspect.
Defiant was looking very specifically for Eddington, and I'm not sure what task force you're talking about. There's never a mention of eliminating the Maquis.
The very fact that you would claim your information is supported by your own "moral uprightness" is perhaps the biggest indicator to me that it's suspect.
Someone asked a question towards the posters if they would have supported the Maquis destroying the Enterprise in preemptive strike or the defiant in for the uniform-in self defense at it were, I said yes given the federation hunting for them and giving them no rest or reprieve I said I would have been supportive had the Maquis achieved such a feat.
Task force was in Pre-emptive strike
Eddington had no reason to lie, exaggerate and animate yes, lie no that would be a tactical error on his part.
I see no reason given the glimpses of wider federation society we've seen for there not to have been an attitude state sanctioned or not of hostility and persecution to Maquis sympathizers-journalists, officers, scientists, the average fed citizen.
I can certainly see a columnist in I dunno the Andorian Times being attacked-personally or professionally, because he or she stated they sympathized with the Maquis.
Amazing how open to interpretation things can be.
I saw the onscreen evidence very differently and without meaning to inflame the thread, a lot of what you have stated from a position of "moral uprightness" has sounded pretty monstrous from my perspective, valuing individual gratification over human lives, personal fulfilment over human suffering.
Glorifying people whose actions destroy the lives of millions in order to achieve some perceived status in life, seemingly arguing that warfare in the name of honour is not only worth the loss of millions but that leaders who choose to wage it rather than make personal compromises should be lauded as "great men" rather than egotists.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't really reflect on you personally but it does show how on screen media, current affairs and recorded history can act much as blank slates, with literally the exact same content appearing very differently through two sets of perceptual filters.
Perception makes reality as they say and unfortunately my reality is ten thousand miles away from yours-your right we think and operate under very different conceptual paradigms and cognitive schemas. What is offensive and frightening to you is virtuous to me. What is sensible and logical to you is moral weakness and spinelessness to me.
I have a feeling that the general Fed citizen was generally unaware of the plight of the Maquis.
I also find it hard to believe that Eddington would not lie to further his own ends. Lying is often used as part of tactics to further your own information and pint of view, to generate sympathy.
The Maquis represented a clear and present danger, not just to the Federation, but also a fragile peace between them and the Cardassians, which could start up a whole other war that would threaten millions of lives.
Not sure how "righteous" it is to destabilize a whole region and instigate another interstellar war. I find that highly questionable, and I believe in a just war philosophy.
In a just war the federation would have conquered the Cardassians in the 2360s.
How is that just? A peaceful resolution can be beneficial outcome as well, if wrongs are recompensed.
Secondly, I'm curious as to what moral authority the Maquis have to wage their own private war against both the Federation and Cardassians?
No, amongst the criteria for "just war" is proportionality. In particular Jus post bellum terms of proportionality state:
"Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated" - meaning that a total occupation of Cardassian space would never have constituted an outcome compatible with the concept unless doing so was literally necessary to prevent the reverse scenario
Furthermore:
"Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted." - conquering a state to the point of ending it's existence as a distinct political entity is also off the cards.
As the Cardassians had clearly never been in a position to subjugate the Federation no, an outright invasion would not have counted as a "just war", nor would an ongoing occupation or annexation have qualified as a just end state.
"Any terms of surrender must be proportional to the rights that were initially violated" - meaning that a total occupation of Cardassian space would never have constituted an outcome compatible with the concept unless doing so was literally necessary to prevent the reverse scenario
Furthermore:
"Draconian measures, absolutionist crusades and any attempt at denying the surrendered country the right to participate in the world community are not permitted." - conquering a state to the point of ending it's existence as a distinct political entity is also off the cards.
As the Cardassians had clearly never been in a position to subjugate the Federation no, an outright invasion would not have counted as a "just war", nor would an ongoing occupation or annexation have qualified as a just end state.
The Cardassians were duplicitous and dangerous empire that would go on to become a part of a more dangerous and destructive regime. And there's no telling what devilish schemes the obsidian order would have concocted even if the wormhole wasn't open. Full conquest of Cardassia and installation of a democratic government, as well being put on track for Fed membership would have been in everybody's interests including the Cardassians.
^So how many millions you prepared to sacrifice for honor and greatness and are you prepared to be first in the queue?
As long as I lead the charge or get my body to be cremated on a glorious funeral pyre then yes I would.
Just like they conquered the Klingons and Romulans? The Federation never fought a war and won all by themselves, they all ended in stalemates or had allies involved. The Federation and its allies never even won the Dominion war, the Founder CHOSE to surrender.
I guess you would do less damage being dead.
The federation had it committed itself could have certainly crushed the Cardassians, they were a second rate power with dreams of grandeur.
Unless of course they make me a member of the general staff!
That does not even work in the real world, ever heard of a state called Iraq?
I doubt war needs another warmongering, meglomanic
