Sisko's Pale Moonlight

[JM1776]

If they were coming in anyway, which you postulate, then they weren't "tricked" into anything. While Sisko's actions are still morally wrong, they are then also not a grand deception, either.

Of course it is. It was just an unnecessary one. The fact that a deception ultimately wasn't required makes it no less a deception. It just obviates its importance.

As for the deaths of Federation troops who "died for freedom" I don't believe that anybody really goes out thinking like that.

Not unless you're very young—as once many of us were.

But when did I use the phrase "died for freedom"?

To quote the line from Black Hawk Down: "It's about the man next to you. That's all it is."

That's right. As I've said above, do right in your little corner of the universe.

...I tend to agree with Admiral Ross on that matter. And yes, I do believe that one life is worth less than a trillion, even if it's mine.

That's not what I said. I asked whether one soul was worth a trillion lives—which again goes back to the philosophical and theological beliefs that underpin anyone's perspective on these matters. As to whether one life can be worth more than two, or ten, or trillions, well ... to assume that two lives are invariably more important than one, no matter the relative quality of those lives, is in my opinion a simplistic take on reality—one often used to salve the conscience of those who make such choices and need to justify them for their own psychological and emotional well-being.

As for the Federation thing, I've always found Roddenberry's vision to be a little too optimistic, but you're are correct when you say that it's a different matter for another time.

At last ... something on which we're agreed.

 

[JM1776]

My second point is also valid.

Considering that I refuted your first point above, "also" is not applicable.

That is, why is it reasonable to allow the Romulans to wait out the Dominion until the Federation forces are so depleted that they would never be able to regain a balance of power once the Dominion was defeated, if you could expect that to happen at all?

It's not. The manner in which you attempt to force their hand is the issue in dispute—which again goes to whether the ends justify the means. Preventing criminal action is one thing; coercing or tricking someone out of what you consider unethical inaction is quite another.

As I've explained time and again, this dispute is not about "reasonable." It's about good and right, and whether this kind of "reasonable" is in any way justifiable—in light of the mores espoused by Sisko and his society, that is. Haven't I said throughout this thread that Sisko did the smart thing? Hell, Section 31 did the smart thing by infecting the Founders. Tessio did the smart thing by betraying Michael Corleone. Judas himself did the smart thing, arguably.

We learn when we're little kids to differentiate between the fact that while two negatives, in certain circumstances, can make a positive, two wrongs do not make a right. It's only later when we're more capable of bullshitting ourselves that such obvious truths become murkier again.

And despite the cynical answer here, that grown ups must make more difficult decisions than children, you can mature without losing your moral compass ... or, worse, steadfastly and chronically ignoring it, as Sisko does on a number of occasions throughout the series, and did here.

 

[smeos]

I find it kind of like splitting hairs. Either the Romulans were tricked or they weren't. If they were going to intervene, then they should have rather than play their little games with the whole Quadrant. If they weren't, and were in fact aiding and abetting the Dominion (however minor) then they were fair game. Either way, the Romulans were gambling with the fate of trillions, and something had to be done. What should have been done is of course at the heart of the matter we're debating now.

You didn't, per se. When you talked about trampling on what they had fought to protect. I assumed that you meant freedom and the like. Sorry if I misunderstood.

You brought up "Inter Arma . . ." which of course had the polemic argument between Bashir and Ross, which purtained to my previous point. What's more honorable? To always do what is right even if it costs many more countless lives? Or to do a small bit of (IMO) necessary evil to save lives? This question has been around forever, and I assume always will be.

As for souls? I don't believe in them myself, so I'd still say yes. Assuming that they are real, then it's really up to whoever's soul it is to decide if it's worth it (I'm assuming here that you were talking about Sisko's).

There was one other thing we agreed on . . . I think.

 

[MyCylon]

I think an important issue ... is the following: The Romulans ... are letting the Dominion make incursions into their territory ....

At best, that's a highly shaky form of neutrality. To me, it's more like they were already involved in the war.

If you accept that premise then, in fact, Sisko was dealing not with a neutral party but with one of the warring parties. As such, other standards do apply..

As you may have guessed, I do not accept that premise—mostly because it doesn't ask the fundamental question: Why?

Despite the reasonable slant Dax put upon it when playing the devil's advocate role early on in the story, it's quite clear from historical precedent that the Romulans do not allow anyone to violate their borders without a sharp check at the very least. What could change such policy, even temporarily? Certainly not just their dislike of the Federation—a people with whom they were clearly willing to ally only a couple of years before. Hell, they'd even thrown a Tal Shiar fleet at the Dominion in conjunction with the Obsidian Order, only to have the effort, as Sisko might say, "blow up in" their faces.

Frankly, it's apparent that the Romulans signed the non-aggression pact not because they thought they'd found a new ally in their ongoing conflict with the UFP, but to buy themselves time at their erstwhile allies' expense. The Dominion presented them with the same option they had the rest of the Alpha Quadrant in an attempt to isolate the Federation/Klingon Alliance, and the ever-opportunistic Romulans jumped on it, because it also served their purposes. Then they hit the jackpot: The UFP mined the wormhole and left the participants far more evenly matched than the Dominion had intended.

Dax, as herself, had said something interesting, in response to Bashir's comments about bringing them into the fight:

"That's the last thing the Romulans want. Think about it ... they're in the perfect position. They get to sit back and watch as their biggest rivals slug it out in a long, bloody war. No one's threatening their interests. Why should they risk their necks? There's simply no reason for them to get involved in our war—no reason at all..."

She's quite right: While the Federation and Klingons are holding their own, or even gradually losing a war of attrition, the Romulans can afford to bide their time, build up their own forces—anyone who thinks their economy hadn't been on a war footing (producing ships and losing none, note) since before the conflict began is off in La La Land—and watch things play out.

But what if, suddenly, the Federation and Klingons were losing the war far too quickly for the Romulans' taste—as occurred with the should-never-have-happened loss of Betazed?

Now the equation's changed ... and on both Romulus and Deep Space Nine, two plus two equals four—while two minus two leaves the Romulans all by their lonesome. And, as I’ve said above, the Praetor’s mom didn’t raise no dummies.

Here's an interesting point for those who claim that the Federation was on the very brink of defeat, and with no help forthcoming: The Romulans, upon learning that their senator had been assassinated (and having scrutinized the damaged Cardassian optolythic data-rod to learn that the Founders had nefarious plans for them), attacked the Dominion in force on a broad front only hours (or at most days) afterward. Now we're all agreed, I'm sure, both that the Romulans are a subtle, clever people, and know the lay of the land pretty damned well. Does it seem likely that they would throw caution to the four winds (or in their case, elements, if you're a Duane fan) and hurl themselves wholeheartedly into a conflict they'd purportedly not wanted and for which they were not prepared? Would not the prudent thing at that point have been to rapidly redeploy their navy so as to preclude any easy aggressive move against them, all while continuing to negotiate (with both sides) as they had been)?

Instead, they attacked.

Why is that? Were they truly in a heedless fury at the loss of just a few men and a sense of outrage at the Dominion's "betrayal"? That's so unlikely as to be easily dismissed, knowing Romulan tendencies as we do.

Or is it far more likely instead, that, rather than having been fooled by The Sisko/Garak Gambit or infuriated at the Dominion's actions, they'd always intended to come in on the Federation's side, once their plans were fully-wrought ... and this just pushed up their timetable a few months, weeks or even days? [Perhaps they, too, were caught out of position, metaphorically speaking, insofar as their schedule was concerned, when the Tenth Fleet screwed up and allowed Betazed's capture: They'd expected the Federation and Klingons to put up a better fight and give them a little more time to complete their preparation for extensive fleet operations.] I mean, logistically and logically speaking, one does not launch an assault on a broad front with overwhelming force, transferring from a primarily defensive posture to one of offense, in a matter of hours—unless that contingency is not only in place, but has been considered a viable option for quite some time.

In short, the Romulans had hoped to sit things out as long as they could, and then jump in once the deployment of their forces would be rapidly and devastatingly decisive. They planned to expel a wearied Dominion from the Alpha Quadrant, and then dictate the postwar galaxy to a prostrate Klingon Empire and a greatly weakened Federation. Frankly, it was an excellent plan. It was, from their pragmatic perspective (as I’ve said before about Sisko), the smart thing to do. [Hell, it's been argued by certain cynical historians that the U.S. did exactly that to Britain in World War Two, and Pearl Harbor hastened our entry into the conflict.] To see it in any other way, in my opinion, is to paint Romulans as rather myopic, or even stupid … and we all know they’re anything but.

Vreenak was established as a highly influential guy who was, seemingly, utterly opposed to the participation of the Empire in the current conflict ... and yet Sisko actually gave him pause more than once during their conversation. Perhaps, on further reflection during the trip home, he would have thought, You know, Sisko's an arrogant fool, but his position has a great deal of validity. This becomes even more likely a happenstance when one considers the military situation as it stood.

[Hell, for that matter, couldn't the Emissary have boarded Vreenak's shuttle, flown him into the wormhole, and had the Prophets show his skeptical ass what would happen if the Romulans didn't enter the war—assuming the Prophets cooperated, of course? They were willing to whack 2,800 starships on Sisko's behalf when he implored their aid. Can we seriously think that a pantheon of beings called "The Prophets" would have denied him a simple vision of the most likely possible future? Even assuming that such is beyond their capabilities (though we have no reason to think it is), scrutiny of their own timeline clearly isn't. They could simply have shown a true vision of Romulan participation in the war. Would it have convinced Vreenak? Perhaps not. But it was certainly logical—a better, cleaner option (and one that had a legitimate chance of success) than the scummy little deception Sisko tried.]

In conclusion: The help the Federation required was probably already on the verge of being given. Sisko sold his soul when it was ultimately unnecessary.

If one’s available information and a gut feeling justified reprehensible action, well … that would mean every idiot with an urge could do as he liked. It's patently obvious that Sisko did the smart thing. The idea, though, that he did the good, the right or even the necessary thing has not been (and will never be) established, because it just ain't so.

I think you're making one essential mistake: While your argument outlines good reasons for the Romulans to act the way they did what's relevant in this instance is the Federation's perspective.
And what do they see? They see a neighbour who - as you correctly pointed out - would normally guard their borders very sharply let your mortal enemy at the time take a shortcut into your territory.
Things might be little different if the Romulans were a small, non-armed society who'd simply be erradicated if they resisted.
But, as we know, this is not the case. They're a major power in the Alpha Quadrant, heavily armed (don't forget that it was the secret service and not the military that was essentially destroyed in "Improbable Cause"/"The Die is Cast") and - if necessary - aggressive.
If we compare the Federation and the Romulan Empire, I think it's safe to assume that the Federation would favor a military setup that is aimed at defense whereas the Romulans would have a standard configuration that would permit them to go on the offense more quickly.
Obviously, they were aware of the Dominion threat (as correctly pointed out, they're no fools) so it's safe to assume they were considering defensive as well as offensive options. And with a more offensive disposition even in times of relative peace, I don't think it would take much for them to up the ante a little more and be even more well prepared to jump the way they did after the events of ITPM.
There's another issue that's been overlooked in this thread and in your argument to some extent, I think. Sisko is one of our major sources of information as to the state of the Federation and the war. You can't simply dismiss that source of information and claim that things weren't that bad and there weren't any other options.
Essentially, you just don't have alternative sources to back this up and I'm not sure why you're so eager to dismiss what he provides us with (especially since he has no reason to lie to us as viewers ).

So, since I really don't think we have any other options than to believe that Sisko was, in fact, convinced that the Federation was facing its end if he didn't act in this instance then I dare say he was in fact 'right' to do what he did. It wasn't merely the "smart" thing to do, it was the only thing, really.

I'd like to comment on one other point you made.At one point you stated that all Sisko might have achieved with his actions was to speed up Romulan plans. Even if that's all that Sisko achieved it might have been vital.
In the Federation's position, time was of the essence. As was pointed out (was it in fact in ITPM?) the Dominion was breeding Jem'Hadar at quite a rate while Starfleet was experiencing a manpower shortage. So time was vital, and months, weeks or even days could make a huge difference in my opinion.

 

[JM1776]

I think you're making one essential mistake...

I've made no mistakes, JusttoYourLeft ... I simply start with different preconceptions and perpectives. Thus, my logic leads me to a different conclusion. Much of what you wrote above is asked and answered previously in the thread, so ... [See below]

I find it kind of like splitting hairs.

One man's split hair is another's subtle point, smeos. When it favors us, it's a subtle point. Otherwise, well ...

As for souls? I don't believe in them myself, so I'd still say yes.

And since I most emphatically do, well ... there you go. Never the twain shall meet.

As I said before, it's been a pleasure exchanging perspectives with you, gentlemen, but ... we're definitely wearing grooves in the subject, now, to no real purpose—not in the sense that anyone's stupid or stubborn, by any means, but in that we're not quite reaching each other, if you take my meaning.

Think I'll move on. I appreciate your comments, though ... they've helped me refine my perspective further.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Garak is guilty of the murders. He planned them. He implemented them, and he did so without anybody's consent or approval. The blame (if one insists on laying any) lies with him and him alone for Vreenak's death.

But did Sisko report it after he knew about it?

Who could he report it to without the risk of it leaking to the Romulans who would then be quite annoyed?

Once he knows he is at least an accessory after the fact.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it though.

psik

 

[smeos]

Sisko never struck me as the type to withhold information, even if it was damning to himself. As Odo pointed out, Starfleet Command has the tendency to look the other way when things work out in their favor. They did it with Kirk and Picard all the time, as well.

 

[MyCylon]

I think you're making one essential mistake...

I've made no mistakes, JusttoYourLeft ... I simply start with different preconceptions and perpectives.

You HAVE based on my preconceptions and perspectives .

But seriously, if you want to leave it at that, that's fine. I just think it's a bit of shame since - as you've pointed out yourself - even small distinctions can be considered important if subtle points. And personally, I think I brought up some of those in my last post and didn't just repeat what had already been stated.

 

[JM1776]

You HAVE based on my preconceptions and perspectives .

That's OK. I'm a strong proponent of people exercising their fundamental right to be wrong, and am pleased to have helped you all do so.

And personally, I think I brought up some of those in my last post and didn't just repeat what had already been stated.

I understand. That's something else on which we don't see eye to eye. Joking above aside, I see nothing irrefutable (or even particularly troublesome to my position) in your last post. As I said, the two sides are not reaching each other ... and since I can scent an eternal struggle on the horizon, I think "respectfully agree to disagree" is where we should end this.

 

[Apogeal Alpha01]

Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Sci]

Sisko's actions, in short, are not representative of the Federation's basic nature -- they do not represent Federation policy.

"You realize I can't authorize a thing like this on my own. I have to clear it with Starfleet Command."

Since he proceeded, that means Sisko received an endorsement for his attempt to deceive the Romulans from his superiors at Starfleet. It's highly doubtful such a potentially beneficial or disastrous action was decided upon by, say, Commodore Smith or Rear Admiral Jones vis-a-vis upper echelons. At the very least, we must assume that high-ranking flag officers made the decision ... and it's not unreasonable to speculate that it was run by either the C-'n'-C, the Federation Council, or both.

Most likely it would have been authorized by the Federation President, actually. And pardon me -- I should have said, "... does not represent normal Federation policy." My point was that the events of "In the Pale Moonlight" represent a significant break from a consistent pattern of respect for foreign states' sovereignty.

Certainly a Federation defeat would have resulted in ... genocide against the inhabitants of Earth ...

While I agree things would certainly have sucked tremendously, the above has by no means been reasonably established. It's a speculation based on a single conversation between Weyoun and Dukat, one later refuted canonically by the female Founder's assertion that the former would rule over territories that included Earth once the war had been concluded.

I don't think that's a contradiction at all. Seems highly probable to me that Weyoun would have been given authority over Earth and would be in charge of eradicating its population -- and, that done, would probably then be responsible for re-populating it with people loyal to the Dominion.

Which is largely if not entirely immaterial in the face of violating their rights to self-determination.

First: Keep in mind that it's not as though it's entirely clear that the Romulan people actually had a say in the government's previous decision to stay "neutral." The ability of the Romulan people to exercise their right to self-determination in the first place is questionable -- was that actually their choice, or was that the choice of the power elite who are oppressing the populace? But I digress.

Is the question of whether Sisko got them to act in their own self-interest immaterial? Which is the greater evil -- preventing them from making their own choices, or allowing them to self-destruct? One does involve far fewer deaths, let's recall.

I agree with other posters who have said that it is important to hang on to our principles when things get tough or when we are tempted to disregard them in the name of expediency or national defense.

But I also think that extraordinary circumstances mean that situations like this have to be judged on a case-by-case basis. It is very possible that Sisko's actions were necessary without being in any way good or right.

I find the above positions mutually exclusive. What you've just said in essence, Sci, is that your should hang on to your principles when it gets tough, but not when it gets really tough.

As I've said before, such makes morality an affectation.

No. What I said above is that there are, in essence, no moral options whatsoever. Any choice made will be immoral in some way. Not acting will lead to billions of deaths and enslavement; acting will lead to millions of deaths. So which is more immoral? To my mind, there's nothing truly moral about not tricking the Romulans into fighting a war if they won't make the decision themselves. To my mind, that is even more immoral than tricking them, because it will have a much larger death toll.

To put it another way: The situation presents us with Option A and Option B. Option A will lead to x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Option B will lead to <x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Given this setup, in my evaluation, Option B is less immoral and thus preferable to Option A.

That's like having your philosophical cake and eating it, too, Sci.

No. It's like recognizing that there's no such thing as a moral solution -- that all possible choices in this very extreme and unusual situation carry significant degrees of immorality.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Sisko's actions, in short, are not representative of the Federation's basic nature -- they do not represent Federation policy.

"You realize I can't authorize a thing like this on my own. I have to clear it with Starfleet Command."

Since he proceeded, that means Sisko received an endorsement for his attempt to deceive the Romulans from his superiors at Starfleet. It's highly doubtful such a potentially beneficial or disastrous action was decided upon by, say, Commodore Smith or Rear Admiral Jones vis-a-vis upper echelons. At the very least, we must assume that high-ranking flag officers made the decision ... and it's not unreasonable to speculate that it was run by either the C-'n'-C, the Federation Council, or both.

Most likely it would have been authorized by the Federation President, actually. And pardon me -- I should have said, "... does not represent normal Federation policy." My point was that the events of "In the Pale Moonlight" represent a significant break from a consistent pattern of respect for foreign states' sovereignty.



I don't think that's a contradiction at all. Seems highly probable to me that Weyoun would have been given authority over Earth and would be in charge of eradicating its population -- and, that done, would probably then be responsible for re-populating it with people loyal to the Dominion.



First: Keep in mind that it's not as though it's entirely clear that the Romulan people actually had a say in the government's previous decision to stay "neutral." The ability of the Romulan people to exercise their right to self-determination in the first place is questionable -- was that actually their choice, or was that the choice of the power elite who are oppressing the populace? But I digress.

Is the question of whether Sisko got them to act in their own self-interest immaterial? Which is the greater evil -- preventing them from making their own choices, or allowing them to self-destruct? One does involve far fewer deaths, let's recall.

I find the above positions mutually exclusive. What you've just said in essence, Sci, is that your should hang on to your principles when it gets tough, but not when it gets really tough.

As I've said before, such makes morality an affectation.

No. What I said above is that there are, in essence, no moral options whatsoever. Any choice made will be immoral in some way. Not acting will lead to billions of deaths and enslavement; acting will lead to millions of deaths. So which is more immoral? To my mind, there's nothing truly moral about not tricking the Romulans into fighting a war if they won't make the decision themselves. To my mind, that is even more immoral than tricking them, because it will have a much larger death toll.

To put it another way: The situation presents us with Option A and Option B. Option A will lead to x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Option B will lead to <x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Given this setup, in my evaluation, Option B is less immoral and thus preferable to Option A.

That's like having your philosophical cake and eating it, too, Sci.

No. It's like recognizing that there's no such thing as a moral solution -- that all possible choices in this very extreme and unusual situation carry significant degrees of immorality.

You must be French

Rob
scorpio

 

[JM1776]

Most likely it would have been authorized by the Federation President, actually.

Entirely possible. The president works just as well as a personification of Federation endorsement and authority.

And pardon me -- I should have said, "... does not represent normal Federation policy." My point was that the events of "In the Pale Moonlight" represent a significant break from a consistent pattern of respect for foreign states' sovereignty.

Tell that to the Ba'ku, the Founders of the Federation who endorsed Section 31 and those who authorized the Pegasus experiments in direct violation of the Treaty of Algeron.

Seems as if that "consistent pattern" of which you speak holds only until the stakes are really high—at least in the 2370's.

I don't think that's a contradiction at all. Seems highly probable to me that Weyoun would have been given authority over Earth and would be in charge of eradicating its population -- and, that done, would probably then be responsible for re-populating it with people loyal to the Dominion.

I readily concede that (and always had) as a possibility, but not a probability.

The Dominion as a whole seemed far more indignant at the idea of having been betrayed than it did open resistance. It's my opinion that the Cardassians, even had they proven ideal allies, were in more danger than the people of Earth. The Founder had promised to destroy them as a people (whereas Weyoun only bandied about the idea of wiping out Earth's population in conversation with a person he disliked and on some level wished to impress with his ruthlessness ... and note he was challenged immediately by Dukat). It's my opinion that the minute the Federation and Klingons had been sufficiently subdued that the Cardassians would have been hunted down to a man.

In short, Weyoun did not make broad-ranging policy without the endorsement of the "female" Founder ... and she had never mentioned the eradication of either humanity at large or the Earth's population specifically. [Note that the "Invasion of Romulus" deception made certain to include the idea that the Founders had decided to move forward with it, vis-a-vis it being the brain child of everyone's favorite Vorta weasel.]

Clearly even the Founders on some level trust the Federation's honor: In "Broken Link," they allow Defiant to enter orbit, despite the fact that if they'd done as Garak wished and unloaded their weapons array into the Great Link they might well have ended hostilities right there ... and this occurs after "The Die is Cast."

Besides, if all the genetically-enhanced Brainiacs were certain that a rebellion centered on Earth would lead to the Dominion's demise and a greater Federation generations hence, well ...

Yes, that's a joke.

First: Keep in mind that it's not as though it's entirely clear that the Romulan people actually had a say in the government's previous decision to stay "neutral." The ability of the Romulan people to exercise their right to self-determination in the first place is questionable -- was that actually their choice, or was that the choice of the power elite who are oppressing the populace? But I digress.

And without sufficient cause to do so. Like it or not, admit it or not, the Romulan government represented by Vreenak was the one from which the Federation accepted a cloaking device, in whose affairs they did not wish to interfere when they (represented by the Tal Shiar) and the Obsidian Order (acting independently) decided to attack the Founders homeworld (since a "wait and see" attitude could have worked out very well indeed for the UFP), and with which the Federation was only too happy to ally once they came down on its side. Odd how quickly such legitimizes them in their eyes ... and yours.

What's the cynical old adage about a people having the government they deserve?

Oh, and ... do you think the Federation people had a say in Sisko's actions, or did they just run it by the Admiralty and the President? You can't have it both ways.

Is the question of whether Sisko got them to act in their own self-interest immaterial? Which is the greater evil -- preventing them from making their own choices, or allowing them to self-destruct? One does involve far fewer deaths, let's recall.

And if this were a numbers game, that might be a telling or even legitimate point, from where I sit. But since it's long established that this conversation is also about the Federation's values and Sisko's soul (and those holding to a literal soul value a single one, which is eternal, over innumerable lives, which are transient) ...

Mysticism aside, though, if Starfleet represents the best of the Federation and exemplifies its values, doesn't it follow that many if not most common citizens of the UFP would also prefer a clean fight—even one they might lose—to winning in such a shitty fashion?

Would most citizens of Earth today agree? No freakin' way ... but we're not talking about Earth today. The UFP is supposed to be different.





Let me instead, despite it not being necessary, point out an entirely reasonable scenario in which the Romulans keep their own counsel and fewer deaths result:

• The Romulans refuse to enter the war
• The Klingons and Federation find themselves pressed even more straitly
• The Dominion commits massive resources to overwhelming the alliance in just a few blows
• A series of enormously destructive engagements are fought, and while our heroes acquit themselves admirably and nobly, they are gradually worsted at tremendous cost to the Dominion
• Nearly exhausted and on the verge of surrender, the Allies gird themselves "for a last stand of desperate battle," as Tolkien would say
• The Dominion commits nearly all of its remaining resources to finishing the job, and ...
• ... the Romulans, their fleet at full strength and with complete surprise, split their forces into a number of battle groups that destroy the relatively unprotected Dominion shipyards, ketracel-white facilities and Jem'Hadar hatcheries; in addition, they catch the remaining Dominion fleet between hammer and anvil (since the remaining Federation/ Klingon armada will giddily cooperate) and destroy it
• The remaining Dominion forces are expelled from the quadrant via the wormhole, which I'm sure will work at the Emissary's behest to send the remaining scumbags home
• In both gratitude for their survival and the realization that they cannot do much to oppose it, the Federation and Klingons accept the annexation of the entire Cardassian Union and Bajor into the Romulan Star Empire. In addition, the Romulans finally win their long war with Vulcan, by requiring its inclusion in the deal. A few more judicious territorial concessions later, and ...

... in one fell swoop over just a few days or weeks, the Romulan Empire stands supreme, and there's nothing at all unlikely about the scenario I just devised with about thirty seconds of thought. [Note that fewer deaths have resulted because the Cardassians have not been reduced in number by 800,000,000.]

That's one reason why I've never bought the false dilemma which the writers tried to foist upon us.

[Another interesting point: Sisko, a man blessed of the gods, and one who called down their wrath upon a 2,800-ship fleet, loses faith that there might be another solution beyond the ones he's envisioned, and takes action diametrically opposed to the values and mores of both his society and that of the deities he represents. That doesn't make the episode more powerful, but instead strikes one as inherently contradictory.]

As I've already shown, it wasn't necessarily in their own self-interest—if the Romulans had indeed planned to intervene when in their view such action would have given them the advantage in the postwar galaxy.

[Off topic: Let me ask you this rather wild question about an admittedly highly unlikely chain of events (very unlike the one above), Sci: What if the Romulans had, instead of remaining out of the war in their own selfish interests, had begun some months before (unbeknownst to the Allies, who were a little busy) embracing the philosophy of Surak en masse? What if a transformed Vreenak had said in response to Sisko's plea, "Perhaps at one time our motives were impure, but ... now we wish only peace with all, and will not attack unless attacked first?" Would it then have been justified to trick them into the war in their own self-interest? Or is that contingent on perceiving them as a de facto enemy to be manipulated as necessary?]

Sisko acted in the Federation's interest. He had no concern for the Romulans except as a convenient tool in the UFP's service, even as the Romulans are currently using the UFP to soften up the Dominion, IMO. The earlier the Romulans come into the war, the more likely they suffer grievous losses in ships and materiel, making them more manageable in the postwar period.

No. What I said above is that there are, in essence, no moral options whatsoever. Any choice made will be immoral in some way. Not acting will lead to billions of deaths and enslavement; acting will lead to millions of deaths. So which is more immoral? To my mind, there's nothing truly moral about not tricking the Romulans into fighting a war if they won't make the decision themselves. To my mind, that is even more immoral than tricking them, because it will have a much larger death toll.

As I've said before in my signature: Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Since I do not acknowledge that any of the actions led to certain destruction or certain victory, you're not making any headway, here.

In short: I don't and will never accept that Sisko's restraint would have doomed the Federation. Every time I hear that, my bullshit detector goes off, full force. That is, granted, perhaps what the writers wanted to have us believe ... but it doesn't hold water under scrutiny, as I've shown.

To put it another way: The situation presents us with Option A and Option B. Option A will lead to x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Option B will lead to <x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Given this setup, in my evaluation, Option B is less immoral and thus preferable to Option A.

But some people, including yours truly, hold that life itself isn't necessarily as important as the manner in which one leads and lives it. The Federation is supposed to be a society of that sort, from where I sit.

No. It's like recognizing that there's no such thing as a moral solution—that all possible choices in this very extreme and unusual situation carry significant degrees of immorality.

And since I find that statement patently untrue, and have shown why time and again in the above thread, well ... we're once again at the point of "round and round."

We know what would likely happen if Sisko had not acted ... but not with a certainty—especially, as I've said, above, in a universe full of wonders and miracles such as that of Star Trek. We do know with a certainty that he acted immorally ...

... and, again, those who endorse his actions have by no means proven it necessary.

Perhaps we can end this now? I mean, tag team with a collection of inveterate Niners is rather exhausting.

 

[smeos]

You say that the Federation was in no way doomed . . . but then the major crux of your argument to allow the Romulans to enter the war at their leisure leaves the Federation a broken and toothless power, which is forced to turn over a planet to a foreign conqueror or face annihilation.

But going back a bit. Picard and Sisko are both on the record with moral and immoral actions. One led to billions of deaths, and one (helped) to preserve the Federation that Sisko swore to protect. Or, at the very least, saved some lives.

If making a moral decision, either way, will inevitably be seen as immoral in the long run, then I think that choosing the numbers game is the only way to go.

 

[JM1776]

You say that the Federation was in no way doomed . . . but then the major crux of your argument to allow the Romulans to enter the war at their leisure leaves the Federation a broken and toothless power, which is forced to turn over a planet to a foreign conqueror or face annihilation.

I offered that as one possibility, not the only one ... and it was a mere example in response to Sci's point about "allowing them to self-destruct." Don't attempt to encapsulate it as the sum or even the locus of my argument.

I said that Sisko cannot know how things would turn out, and such is undeniably true. Can he think he knows? Sure. Did the higher ups in Starfleet agree? Yep. But I hold that one of Star Trek's main themes, as mentioned in a post above and espoused by Spock to Valeris in Star Trek VI, is that one must have faith that the universe will turn out as it should—his clear implication in context being that one mustn't do evil in an attempt to do good. Sisko's sin is even greater than that of another Starfleet officer taking such action, in that he's the Blessed of the Prophets, and gives in to despair and desperation despite having felt their power.

[One could even reasonably argue (and I'm not, mind you) that Sisko compromised his beliefs and "it all blew up in" his face, while Garak did what he genuinely believed was right and it worked out perfectly ... and thus in that way the themes of Star Trek were upheld ... but that leads further down the road to a discussion of situational ethics and absolute morality, and we'll not solve that problem, either.]

I on the other hand maintain that if Sisko had done absolutely nothing, the Romulans would have come into the war on the Federation's side anyway, not long after he'd supposedly "tricked" them into it.

But going back a bit. Picard and Sisko are both on the record with moral and immoral actions. One led to billions of deaths, and one (helped) to preserve the Federation that Sisko swore to protect. Or, at the very least, saved some lives.

Or cost more lives because 800,000,000 Cardassians wouldn't have been massacred in whatever other timeline was created, as I mention above.

You protect a civilization not only by preserving the lives of its citizens, but (more importantly for a truly idealistic society) preserving its values and mores.

"The first duty of any Starfleet officer is to the truth—whether scientific truth, or historical truth, or personal truth. It is the guiding principle upon which Starfleet is based. And if you can't find it within yourself to stand up for the truth [even when it may cost you and yours everything], then you don't deserve to wear that uniform."

Picard might as well have been talking to Sisko as Wesley.

As to your other point ...

... while I do think Picard made an error in not taking certain steps (the ones I mention above), there's no assurance or even likelihood, in light of how often we've seen the Borg adapt rapidly and almost effortlessly, that their engineered virus, delivered to and by an obscure little drone, would have so profoundly affected the Collective as the E-D's crew hoped. More likely it would have done some damage, and the Borg would have excised the already infected portion of the whole. Janeway's contagion was delivered to the Queen herself, and spread out to the Collective from there, making it much more effectual than it would have been in any other circumstance. It's analogous to the difference between a snake bite in the face or neck, and one in your big toe.

If making a moral decision, either way, will inevitably be seen as immoral in the long run, then I think that choosing the numbers game is the only way to go.

And, once more, since I don't acknowledge (and it has not been conclusively shown) that not tricking the Romulans into the war would have been an immoral decision, that's an attempt to present a false dilemma.

And since I don't acknowledge the numbers game as valid for one who believes in intangibles such as the soul and other values more important than life itself, we're at a complete impasse.

All your arguments are logical ... and if logic were the sole or highest virtue, you might win the day. But, as Spock, demigod of logic, said, "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not its end.

"You must have faith."

Unfortunately, there are too many Valerises and Siskos out there who don't.

 

[Sci]

You must be French

English, actually.

And pardon me -- I should have said, "... does not represent normal Federation policy." My point was that the events of "In the Pale Moonlight" represent a significant break from a consistent pattern of respect for foreign states' sovereignty.

Tell that to the Ba'ku,

Also a significant break from standard policy. And I don't know if you care to accept them into the debate, but the novel Section 31: Abyss establishes that the Bak'u incident was actually a Section 31 operation and that Admiral Dougherty never had the Federation Council's approval.

the Founders of the Federation who endorsed Section 31

There is no evidence that the Founders of the Federation endorsed Section 31. Section 31 during the ENT era justified its existence to itself and to others by pointing to Article 14, Section 31 of the United Earth Starfleet Charter, which noted that in times of crises, some rules could be bent. That's very different from actually establishing a permanent organization with permanent and absolute authority to decide for itself how it will act with no accountability to the civilian government; as such, the evidence to me indicates that Section 31 is no more than a criminal conspiracy that uses patriotic noise to justify its behavior to itself and that the civilian government did not found or endorse them.

and those who authorized the Pegasus experiments in direct violation of the Treaty of Algeron.

"The Pegasus" rather strongly indicated that that particular experiment was Pressman's baby; he was brought to justice, let's recall.

Odd how quickly such legitimizes them in their eyes ... and yours.

I never said that legitimizes them -- I believe the most I've ever indicated is a belief that you work with what you've got.

Oh, and ... do you think the Federation people had a say in Sisko's actions, or did they just run it by the Admiralty and the President? You can't have it both ways.

It is a fact of life that a government will always make some decisions without consuling the populace, and in a democracy, this is often either because of a legitimate need to keep some information secret to prevent its detection by the enemy, or simply because not even the people are supposed to have ultimate power -- even they are supposed to have a check on their power the same way other political actors in constitutional liberal democracy do. But there is a large difference between a lack of consultation in individual decisions and a government's actually lacking any democratic mandate to govern from its people.

Is the question of whether Sisko got them to act in their own self-interest immaterial? Which is the greater evil -- preventing them from making their own choices, or allowing them to self-destruct? One does involve far fewer deaths, let's recall.

And if this were a numbers game, that might be a telling or even legitimate point,

It is a numbers game, at least in part. If every action you take will result in large numbers of deaths and/or rights violations, then, logically, the most moral course of action you can take must be the one that results in the lowest number of deaths and human (sentient) rights violations.

To deliberately undertake a course of action that will result in more deaths and rights violations is to pretend at possessing a morality one does not actually possess -- it is to play at being a saint when one is no such thing.

Mysticism aside, though, if Starfleet represents the best of the Federation and exemplifies its values, doesn't it follow that many if not most common citizens of the UFP would also prefer a clean fight—even one they might lose—to winning in such a shitty fashion?

You're talking about the destruction of an entire society. The complete loss of freedom on a massive scale. The end to the Federation peoples' ways of life. Potential genocide.

Would a reasonable person really decide that the rights of less than ten individuals outweigh the rights of billions upon billions of Federates?

Let me instead, despite it not being necessary, point out an entirely reasonable scenario in which the Romulans keep their own counsel and fewer deaths result:

• The Romulans refuse to enter the war
• The Klingons and Federation find themselves pressed even more straitly
• The Dominion commits massive resources to overwhelming the alliance in just a few blows
• A series of enormously destructive engagements are fought, and while our heroes acquit themselves admirably and nobly, they are gradually worsted at tremendous cost to the Dominion
• Nearly exhausted and on the verge of surrender, the Allies gird themselves "for a last stand of desperate battle," as Tolkien would say
• The Dominion commits nearly all of its remaining resources to finishing the job, and ...
• ... the Romulans, their fleet at full strength and with complete surprise, split their forces into a number of battle groups that destroy the relatively unprotected Dominion shipyards, ketracel-white facilities and Jem'Hadar hatcheries; in addition, they catch the remaining Dominion fleet between hammer and anvil (since the remaining Federation/ Klingon armada will giddily cooperate) and destroy it
• The remaining Dominion forces are expelled from the quadrant via the wormhole, which I'm sure will work at the Emissary's behest to send the remaining scumbags home
• In both gratitude for their survival and the realization that they cannot do much to oppose it, the Federation and Klingons accept the annexation of the entire Cardassian Union and Bajor into the Romulan Star Empire. In addition, the Romulans finally win their long war with Vulcan, by requiring its inclusion in the deal. A few more judicious territorial concessions later, and ...

... in one fell swoop over just a few days or weeks, the Romulan Empire stands supreme,

And the United Federation of Planets stands at the mercy of an empire with centuries of emnity towards it from conflicts that neither the Federation nor its predecessor states (United Earth, etc.) started. Tell me, how exactly is conquest and occupation and oppression at the hands of the Romulan Star Empire a more moral outcome for the Federation than at the hands of the Dominion? How exactly does having the Romulan flag fly over Paris instead of the Dominion flag prove that Sisko has better values?

I contend that if the Federation were to follow the course of action you just describe there, it still be immoral, and it would indeed be more immoral than tricking the Romulans as Sisko did. Your scenerio simply results in more Federation deaths and more Federation rights violations. Sisko's choice resulted in 10 civilian deaths and a post-war situation where neither the Federation nor the Romulan Star Empire could dominate the other. Give me the latter any day of the week.

[Off topic: Let me ask you this rather wild question about an admittedly highly unlikely chain of events (very unlike the one above), Sci: What if the Romulans had, instead of remaining out of the war in their own selfish interests, had begun some months before (unbeknownst to the Allies, who were a little busy) embracing the philosophy of Surak en masse? What if a transformed Vreenak had said in response to Sisko's plea, "Perhaps at one time our motives were impure, but ... now we wish only peace with all, and will not attack unless attacked first?" Would it then have been justified to trick them into the war in their own self-interest? Or is that contingent on perceiving them as a de facto enemy to be manipulated as necessary?]

It would still be justified because their refusal to fight itself constitutes a betrayal of their people and their children. Not fighting is the same thing as surrender to the Dominion.

To put it another way: Would it have been moral for the United States to refuse to fight the Nazis out of a genuine belief in pacifism? I do not believe so; obviously, not every war is World War II and not every enemy is Adolf Hitler. But when you're faced with that kind of genuine evil? Yeah, I think you, as a government, have an obligation to commit your nation to battling them. And if you fail to do so, I don't object to another government tricking you into it. If Great Britain had tricked the United States into fighting the Nazis? I'd say give Winston Churchill a medal.

Sisko acted in the Federation's interest. He had no concern for the Romulans except as a convenient tool in the UFP's service, even as the Romulans are currently using the UFP to soften up the Dominion, IMO. The earlier the Romulans come into the war, the more likely they suffer grievous losses in ships and materiel, making them more manageable in the postwar period.

And it would be more moral for Sisko to allow the Romulans to make the Federation more manageable in the post-war period?

No. What I said above is that there are, in essence, no moral options whatsoever. Any choice made will be immoral in some way. Not acting will lead to billions of deaths and enslavement; acting will lead to millions of deaths. So which is more immoral? To my mind, there's nothing truly moral about not tricking the Romulans into fighting a war if they won't make the decision themselves. To my mind, that is even more immoral than tricking them, because it will have a much larger death toll.

As I've said before in my signature: Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

Yes. Sometimes your choices are greater evil or lesser evil, and that's just all there is to it. Even not choosing is still choosing evil.

Since I do not acknowledge that any of the actions led to certain destruction or certain victory, you're not making any headway, here.

And since I do not acknowledge that the a priori assumptions Sisko made are invalid, you're not making any headway here.

(Am I the only one thinking back to the story of the North-Going Zak and the South-Going Zak?)

In short: I don't and will never accept that Sisko's restraint would have doomed the Federation. Every time I hear that, my bullshit detector goes off, full force.

And I don't and will never accept that his action's were more immoral than not acting to trick the Romulans. Every time I hear the idea that it is more moral to allow an entire society to be destroyed than to trick the Romulans, my bullshit detector goes off in full force.

To put it another way: The situation presents us with Option A and Option B. Option A will lead to x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Option B will lead to <x number of peoples' rights being completely and utterly violated. Given this setup, in my evaluation, Option B is less immoral and thus preferable to Option A.

But some people, including yours truly, hold that life itself isn't necessarily as important as the manner in which one leads and lives it. The Federation is supposed to be a society of that sort, from where I sit.

And what exactly is so morally superior about living a life where you allow large numbers of other people to die? It's one thing if you're talking about yourself. But others?

No. It's like recognizing that there's no such thing as a moral solution—that all possible choices in this very extreme and unusual situation carry significant degrees of immorality.

And since I find that statement patently untrue, and have shown why time and again in the above thread, well ... we're once again at the point of "round and round."

True that.

We know what would likely happen if Sisko had not acted ... but not with a certainty—especially, as I've said, above, in a universe full of wonders and miracles such as that of Star Trek. We do know with a certainty that he acted immorally ...

You cannot base your decisions under any circumstance on certainties -- only on probabilities. If there is an incredibly high probability of death resulting from inaction, you have a moral obligation to act.

... and, again, those who endorse his actions have by no means proven it necessary.

And you have by no means proven it unnecessary. It's not something that can be proven either way -- all you can do is say, these are the facts, these are the options, these are the probable consequences of either option.

Perhaps we can end this now? I mean, tag team with a collection of inveterate Niners is rather exhausting.

If you want to end it, by all means.

But I will ask for one thing:

Will you at least acknowledge that we're all trying to find the most moral decisions we know how to find? That we all wish to be moral and are making the most moral decisions we know how to make?

Will you at least acknowledge that even if Sisko did wrong, he did wrong in the attempt to do right?

Because I do. I acknowledge that even though I believe the choices you would make in Sisko's place are wrong, that they would be made out of a genuine desire to do the right thing. And that's a very important thing to remember: To acknowledge that even when we disagree, and strongly so, we should try to trust one-another to act in good faith and to acknowledge it when we do.

 

[smeos]

You said you were leaving. Here I thought I was gonna get a nice little parting shot off without response, but noooooo . . . .

The horrific losses that were suffered by the Cardassians had nothing to do with the Romulans entry into the war. As you pointed out above, they may very well have been doomed anyway. They were slaughtered because their leaders got them in bed with some very nasty folks.

War is dirty. No one is clean in war. Those that attempt to remain so can often end up causing more harm than good. Picard's actions may have destroyed the collective, and I can certainly agree with you that they may have only destroyed a few cubes. The point is that he didn't even try. Sisko (oversaw, or was an accomplice to, however you want to see it) undertook actions that led to the death of one Romulan senator (who was instrumental in making policy that had led to the deaths of countless Federation and Klingon soldiers, as well as who knows how many innocent civilians) 4 of his bodyguards (maybe a pilot, one is never mentioned) and a criminal who would have been executed anyway. Garak is right, it's a bargain.

We both agree that he did the smart thing. Morality, and the implications thereof, are what remain the issue. Moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. Picard's speech is nice and all, but was made in a time of peace and since we never got to see the Dominion war through Picard's eyes (shame) we'll never know how badly it affected him.

As for me, Starfleet is a military organization. Their ships carry weapons, they know how to use phasers, and they are tasked with defending the Federation. Starfleet officers take an oath to defend the Federation. Not the Romulans. Not the Cardassians. In a war like that, in a situation like that, you have to look out for yourselves first. Sisko acted immorally (depending on ones POV) and killed, at most, 6 people. End result, the Romulans entered the war (which you maintain that they would have done anyway) and (Federation) lives were saved.

If he doesn't do that, then he is reneging on his oath to protect the lives of Federation citizens, which in and of itself is immoral.

 

[JM1776]

Respectfully, I didn't see much of anything new in the above two posts that wouldn't simply inspire another round of refutation, riposte, etc. ad infinitum, ad tedium et ad nauseam. Suffice to say that I could respond substantively ... but to no discernable purpose.

Will you at least acknowledge that we're all trying to find the most moral decisions we know how to find?

Indeed ... but that some know how to do and perceive what's moral much better than others. As to who is who, well ... as I've already said, no one's budging from their position, and all concerned feel their side is more justified.

That we all wish to be moral and are making the most moral decisions we know how to make?

Within the dodgy framework of espousing moral relativism, that the ends justify the means, and a slippery slope school of ethics—all principles that from where I stand largely invalidate the morality of a position and/or decision—such is indeed the attempt being made.

I find such justifications to be based in a myopic, arithmetic and (to my way of thinking) anemic weltanschaaung, which I utterly reject, but ... sure. Perhaps (because I wouldn't deign to speak for anyone else here) you find my take fanciful, superstitious, Pollyannish and/or logically unjustifiable.

We understand each other. We don't agree. And because our preconceptions are so vastly disparate, we cannot convince that guy on the other side of the gulf.

Will you at least acknowledge that even if Sisko did wrong, he did wrong in the attempt to do right?

Nope. Sisko did wrong, knowing he was doing wrong, in hopes that it would work out well for his side—which is very much different from an "attempt to do right." Action motivated by fear, lack of faith in his own society's mores and jingoism is not an "attempt to do right"—though I understand why an examination from another perspective might yield that conclusion.

[Oh, and ... as to your responses re: my "bullshit detector" comments ... try and find some material of your own, will ya, copycat? ]

Starfleet officers take an oath to defend the Federation.

And, more importantly, its principles and ideals.

Is the Federation simply a political entity within which people shelter? We know from forty years of Star Trek that this is not the case. A civilian living in the Federation couldn't care less about doing the right thing no matter the cost. A citizen of the Federation, though, would have a very different take.

If he doesn't do that, then he is reneging on his oath to protect the lives of Federation citizens, which in and of itself is immoral.

No, smeos. See above.

Sisko was arguably a good soldier, depending on your perception of black ops. As a veteran, strategist and tactician, I have no quarrel with a well-designed and executed bit of misdirection.

He was, though, in this instance and others, a miserable excuse for a Starfleet officer.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Sisko was arguably a good soldier, depending on your perception of black ops. As a veteran, strategist and tactician, I have no quarrel with a well-designed and executed bit of misdirection.

He was, though, in this instance and others, a miserable excuse for a Starfleet officer.[/QUOTE]

I would argue that Picard is a terrible excuse for a Starfleet officer. Everything Admiral Sati, or whatever her name was, accused him of..was true.

1. He had a chance to destroy the Federation's most brutal enemy and chose not to based on some 'morality' of his. He didn't take an oath to himself, he took an oath to the Federation. He had a chance, via Hugh, to inflict harm. Whether or not we were at war with the Borg at the time isn't an excuse. Another Captain could have made the argument we were..and I think..we were.

2. He allowed sensitive information to be taken from his mind to be used against the fleet at wolf 359. He knew for the first hour of BOBW he was their target and he made no effort to secure that Information. He failed his crew, and ultimately, he failed Starfleet. All because he put his own personal beliefs above the survival of the Federation. Some might call that far thinking. Others would call is self serving. But Jennifer Sisko, and all those others who lost their lives at Wolf 359, and all the other lives that were lost that we didn't see, would call it stupidity.

Whether or not Sisko saved the Federation we will never know. But just like great men before his time, Patton-Macarther-Grant, sometimes you have to make decisions that the eggheads will debate for decades, if not centuries, to come...

Picard's fense sitting cost the Federation far more lives than Sisko's questionable acts in PALE MOON LIGHT.

Rob
Scorpio

 

[JM1776]

[Picard] had a chance to destroy the Federation's most brutal enemy ... He had a chance, via Hugh, to inflict harm.

Actually, I explained above why I agree in some measure with this. He could have acted both morally and against the Borg, if he'd given it a modicum of thought.

Of course, in retrospect, it's highly unlikely their little virus would have done significant damage—not delivered as it was.

He allowed sensitive information to be taken from his mind to be used against the fleet at Wolf 359. He knew f[rom] the first hour of "BoBW" he was their target and he made no effort to secure that information. He failed his crew, and ultimately, he failed Starfleet.

Your point about securing "the information" is conveniently vague.

What do you propose that he should have done? Commit suicide so as to avoid capture? Ridiculous, even in context.

Remember, they had no idea at that point that assimilation was a Borg capability. Previously, they had been interested in nothing but technology.

Whether or not Sisko saved the Federation we will never know. But just like great men before his time...

If the implication there is that Sisko is a great man, or greater than Picard, well ... you're entitled to your opinion. I find that assertion laughable.

...Patton-MacArthur-Grant, sometimes you have to make decisions that the eggheads will debate for decades, if not centuries, to come...

Because anyone who questions a real man's decision-making is an "egghead," of course.

Nice.

Picard's fence-sitting cost the Federation far more lives than Sisko's questionable acts ....

Assuming facts not in evidence, Counselor.

I think once we start seeing perjoratives like "egghead," the productive part of the discussion has passed.

An eternal debate which cannot be won holds no interest for me. The field is yours, gentlemen.