Sisko's Pale Moonlight
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
If they want to bring peace why did they foster conflict in the quadrant? They tried to get the Federation into a war at the end of season 3, then again in season 4 they broke the peace between the Federation and Klingons, which led to a war later.
Plus they have shown that they are more then willing to destroy a civilisation if they want to. They did it to the people they infected with the Blight and possibly with the people that guy who created that holographic village was from. Plus Weyoun seemed to have no concerns about planning to wipe out the population of Earth or with following the orders to wipe out the Cardassians.
The Dominion wasn't concerned about peace in the Alpha quadrant, just with wiping out several large powers run by solid, who they feared.
He would have had my support. Garak weighed what was lost vs what was gained quite nicely.
the Dominion only started the war between the feds and the klingons because it's more effective to have your enemies kill each other then to go into an all out war and lose troops and equipment. As far as the other races in the gamma quad they opposed the Dominion and had to suffer for it. don't oppose them and you'll be fine. Same thing in the Klingon empire and the Romulan empire, opose them and belive u me you'll suffer.
We're never told but I would guess there are no civil wars within the gamma quad only peace
So opposing oppression by a foreign power means your fair game for occupation or destruction?
We're never told but I would guess there are no civil wars within the gamma quad only peace
I'm going to assume you're joking.
No, he's a confessed accessory to murder.
I see. So, Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt -- whose actions are comparable to Sisko's, only they involved more innocent victims; Churchill's decision not to evacuate British cities after finding out about planned German raids on them because that would alert the Germans to the fact that the Allies had cracked the German ENIGMA code, for instance, led to thousands of British civilian deaths; and of course if it is accurate that Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, then he not only allowed hundreds of Americans to die but did so with the intent of manipulating the nation into entering World War II, leading to the deaths of thousands more of his own people -- they're murderers and pathetic excuses for human beings?
You be sure to tell that to all the people who suffered under Axis oppression. Be sure to tell that to all the women who were enslaved as comfort women by the imperial Japanese, or to all the Jews and gays who were murdered by the Nazis, or all the Ethiopians killed by the Fascist Italians. Be sure to tell them that the choices that helped bring those empires down were unjustifiable and that their oppression at the hands of the Axis was a preferable course of action.
Be sure to tell them that. I'm sure they'll think it's a completely reasonable opinion. Not the least bit morally simplistic at all.
Did anyone read the trek novel that dealt with the aftermath of In the Pale Moonlight? It sounded interesting at the time.
I also wonder about Senator Creetak after Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges. If she wasn't executed, she might have been in a position to expose not only Section 31 and the Federation's involvement in her own downfall, but also could uncover the truth behind Romulus' entry into the war.
I also wonder about Senator Creetak after Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges. If she wasn't executed, she might have been in a position to expose not only Section 31 and the Federation's involvement in her own downfall, but also could uncover the truth behind Romulus' entry into the war.
Hollow Men by Una McCormack is, indeed, a wonderful novel.
Maybe. Maybe not. Section 31 wasn't involved with the assassination of Senator Vreenak, so it's entirely possible that Cretak would remain unaware of that.
[It's my understanding that the "Churchill Let Coventry Burn" theory has been called into question (and largely debunked) by modern military historians, but that's hardly at issue here. Your point is clear, and you're not trying to deceive but rather draw a comparison, so let's assume for the sake of discussion that he did, indeed, make said decision.]
One difference, philosophically speaking, between Sisko's actions and those of Churchill, Roosevelt or both is that Sisko's was an active deception aimed at manipulating the Romulan Empire, an entity over which he had neither legal nor moral authority. The Romulans had the ethical right to make an informed decision concerning participation in the war—a right Sisko's manipulations denied them.
Roosevelt and Churchill, on the other hand, were duly elected and authorized representatives of their respective governments, upon which were bestowed the duty, responsibility, and right to make horrendously difficult life and death decisions on behalf of their people, for what they believed was the greater good.
Some will consider this a subtle but tremendously important distinction. Others will think it semantics or sophistry.
I'm not certain how you drew this conclusion, unless it's your contention that there are no innocent Romulans. Are you assuming that the casualties at Pearl Harbor and Coventry number more than the Romulan civilians and blameless soldiery killed during the Dominion War, an interstellar conflict far more massive in scope than even World War II?
Like the dread "Did DS9 Swipe Ideas from B5?" subject, this one has become almost purposeless to discuss, in that most are so intransigently ingrained in their opinions that even a good point raised by the opposition elicits only more anger and indignation.
It's apparent that your understanding of ethics and morals is critical to any opinion on the propriety and righteousness of Sisko's actions. "Do the ends justify the means?" is not a question we'll answer here.
If we're affording the Romulans the respect due masters of Byzantine intrigue, though, this may in some measure be an irrelevant debate. They planned to intervene on the Federation's side eventually; that much is obvious, since a galaxy scoured clean of a fairly beneficent neighbor, one that had heeled your greatest foe, is far preferable to a technologically and numerically superior enemy englobing your territory.
And the Praetor's mom didn't raise no dummies.
They wanted to impose order all right, and a jemhadar on every corner and a vorta using the President of the UFP as a puppit kinda destroys what the federation is about, so it WOULD have destroyed the UFP as they knew it.
You can debate the morality of Sisko's actions until the cows come home. But it always boils down to the same thing: choice.
1.) Billions of lives at risk in the Alpha quadrant versus...
2.) A criminal who was already on death row + a pro Dominion Romulan Senator, member of the same Romulan empire that signed a NAP with the Dominion and aided them by allowing them to stage attacks from their space + self respect of one Starfleet officer.
Now, what choice would you have made?
1.) Billions of lives at risk in the Alpha quadrant versus...
2.) A criminal who was already on death row + a pro Dominion Romulan Senator, member of the same Romulan empire that signed a NAP with the Dominion and aided them by allowing them to stage attacks from their space + self respect of one Starfleet officer.
Now, what choice would you have made?
Like Sisko, most people would make the terrible choice even knowing they were damning themselves to a lifetime of guilt and (if you're religious) possibly damnation for such an act. Sometimes your own personal morality, even if you believe something is the morally incorrect thing to do, is simply the practical thing to do. And we all live in a very uncaring, practical universe folks. If there was a reasonable certainty that Sisko's inaction would lead to tens or hundreds of billions of Federation and Klingon and even Romulan deaths and the occupation by and submission to a hostile empire, then yes! Forget individual, selfish morality!
So opposing oppression by a foreign power means your fair game for occupation or destruction?
We're never told but I would guess there are no civil wars within the gamma quad only peace
I'm going to assume you're joking.
Yea I was just yanking your chain.
Of course, the assumption there is that lives can be somehow reduced to a quantitative value: Ten is worth more than six and thirteen, four; billions are, obviously, worth more than two. For a pragmatist, such is a reasonable conclusion, and your opinion is noted. I'm just curious, though: Are billions of Stalins and Hitlers worth more than, say, Gandhi and Martin Luther King? Are billions of Romulans worth more than Kirk and Spock? Or are you simply relying on some metaphysical law of averages to make the determination of which lives are worth more?
And for your "choice" above ...
... is that not what is called in formal logic a false dilemma?
The flaw therein, and one that in my opinion invalidates the reasoning inherent in most people's acceptance of Sisko's choices is that he must assume, before acting, that his vision of the future—one in which the Federation would be defeated if he didn't act—is invariably and unquestionably correct. We have no idea if such is the case, because we didn't see history flow in that direction. It actually boils down to this: He is operating under an essentially unjustified assumption—one motivated by his own fear and lack of faith.
Now if the writers had explicitly stated that the Prophets were instructing him to act in that fashion (or even subtly nudging him in that direction), this would have been a far more interesting debate, along the lines of "take thy son Isaac, whom thou lovest," etc.
FordSVT said:
I question your presumption that you know what "most people" would do in this situation, and that even if correct that such somehow validates it ethically. [Many if not most people would, for example, hide their child from the lawful authorities if he or she had committed premeditated, cold-blooded and brutal murder, even though it would be unquestionably wrong to do so.] You can say, at best, that you know what most Niners and certain TrekBBSers posting here would do ... and such is neither a revelation nor an unbiased sampling.
The idea that most genuinely "religious people," though (and I'm assuming here you mean by "religious people" those from a Judeo-Christian tradition in which they deeply believe), would make such a choice is even shakier, assuming they comprehend the deeper commitments of their faith and its underlying theology—which, granted, many (and more than a few I've encountered here) do not. A person of profound Jewish and Christian faith understands, and more believes, that a trillion lives mean less than that of a single soul, because they know that their true kingdom and eventual home is not in this world.
Such "reasonable certainty" as you mention above does not often exist in our own reality, let alone a universe of wonders such as that of Star Trek ... and it didn't in this case either—except in Sisko's mind. He presumed that because he couldn't see another way out for the Federation, that one didn't exist—the quintessence of hubris cunningly disguised as heroism.
A number of other eventualities spring to mind; the possibility of any puts to flight the conclusion that Sisko 'did the right thing' or 'had no choice':
- The Romulans join the war at a later date, which seems quite likely considering their skill at reading the writing on the wall.
- New allies join the fight. After all, if the writers allow the Dominion to solicit the Breen, why couldn't the Federation enlist one or more of the myriad species that it has befriended over the centuries?
- The Federation and Klingons simply rally their forces and are eventually victorious.
She, just like Sisko and so many others, simply doesn't get it. You do the right thing in your little corner of reality, and trust that others of good will will accomplish the same elsewhere. You don't take it upon yourself to say, "I'm the only one with the vision and moxie to do what has to be done." Sisko made himself over into Sloan—a process that had begun when he bombed that Maquis colony to coerce Eddington into surrender.
Sisko did the smart thing, no question about it. He by no means did the right or good thing. Think about the scorn with which Bashir castigates Ross after Creetak's sacrifice, employing Cicero's insightful declaration, "Inter arma enim silent leges." While Julian himself had already often proved quite the hypocrite, here he's time on target, as he is with Sloan whenever they cross philosophical swords: You cannot set aside the right in order to uphold it. It's inherently paradoxical and self-defeating.
I have posted this before, but it bears repeating: It is when we most desperately wish to abandon our principles—precisely in those moments when we don't see another way out with our limited vision—that we must find the fervor and faith to cling to them, else they are an affectation at best ... and at worst, an irrefutable example of our hypocrisy.
I totally agree with that.
But sometimes there are situations in which it might be necessary for somebody to abandon his principles "for the greater good".
Take Stauffenberg in WWII as example. He abandoned all of his principles as christian and as Prussian officier when he tried to kill Hitler and was later considered a Hero for doing so. And there is no doubt for me he was one.
I wouldn't see Sisko as a hero because of his actions in ITPM and I think he himself doesn't do this, too. But I don't see him as "terrible human" either, this is far to hard.
There were no billions of Stalins or Hitlers whose lives were on the line. There were billions of innocent Federation and Klingon citizens whose lives were on the line. Those were in fact the lives he was concerned with saving. Are billions of Romulan lives worth more than Kirk and Spock? Yes indeed they are. Especially if I'm a Romulan. And in war, lives are always reduced to a quantitative value. If you force the other side to incur more losses, you will probably find yourself the victor.
The lengths to which the Dominion were willing to take to win the war were stated plainly. In Sacrifice of Angels Weyoun says that Earth is the most likely place for an organized resistance to be born. He then advocated the complete elimination of its population. Genocide decided on a whim, just like that. And it was not simple posturing. In the final two episodes of DS9, the Dominion did in fact begin the process of genocide against Cardassia. Sisko's "vision" of the future was very much accurate, even without the help of the Prophets.
By most of those directing the killing, yes. How expedient that must be.
Starfleet and the Federation are supposed to represent a higher ideal. The writers of DS9 blatantly ignored that when it suited their purposes.
As opposed to the decision of the Federation Council to deny the Founders the antidote for a malady created and inflicted on them by Federation citizens acting in the UFP's name long before the war even started? Genocide decided on worse than a whim—instead debated and then endorsed.
Considering the immense population of extraterrestrial humans (which I presume numbers at least in the hundreds of millions and very likely billions), I very much doubt the destruction of Earth would constitute genocide—which is obviously not to imply that such a crime wouldn't be heinous, but merely to point out that "genocide" is not applicable in this instance—whereas the death of the Founders would mean precisely that.
With that digression now out of the way ... the ruthlessness of the Dominion is not at issue, nor are the lengths to which they would stoop. Words do not equal action. You've decided that a single conversation between two competing underlings constituted the Dominion's policy concerning Earth, when such is obviously, canonically not the case. Note that later, during latter season seven, Weyoun and the "female" Founder discuss what territories will be governed by whom. The clear implication of the exchange is that a very much intact Earth will fall under Weyoun's authority as opposed to the Breen's in the postwar galaxy—which casts your speculation about the planet's eventual fate at the least very much into doubt and more likely refutes it completely.
Actually, there's some evidence to indicate it was precisely that, even in the original conversation.
You're assuming facts not in evidence. The Founder, in issuing that order, was simply fulfilling before optimally convenient a vow she'd made Garak she would some years before—that the Cardassians as a people were dead as a result of having attempted to wipe out the Founders. The Dominion's leaders fully understand the difference between the manner in which you treat an enemy defeated in war, such as the Federation, and one that stabbed you in the back not once, but twice, as the Cardassians did.
I'd say we've once again reached the point of diminishing returns. No one's going to move an iota from their position, no matter how persuasive the opposition's argument.
I understand your perspective. I do not share it, for the reasons I've given above.
