The Typhon Pact

[Sci]

For the record, the novel The Lost Era: The Sundered by Michael A. Martin & Andy Mangels, and the ongoing Vanguard series provide a lot of insight into Tholian culture, history, and beliefs -- including an excellent explanation for why they are often so hostile to non-Tholians.

In addition to DS9's excellent coverage, the Terok Nor trilogy and A Stitch in Time both give a lot of insight into Cardassian culture. The Gorn Crisis gave us some insight into the Gorn as well.

As for the Talarians, Tzenkethi, Kinshaya, and more of the Gorn? Well, that's presumably what the new Typhon Pact novels will be all about!

 

[Christopher]

^@Christopher
The "instigatory" comment was just me proceeding from one assumption that certain sections of SI might view the Pact as a direct and imminent threat to the Federation. Of course it might not be the case that the Pact is a threat, in which case it would be foolish to cause incidents that might result in more conflict.

It would be even more foolish to cause incidents if they are a threat, because it's just going to make them hate and fear you even more than they do already. History shows that trying to force or manipulate other countries into bowing to your will generally creates more problems than it solves.

 

[rahullak]

^
Even in the event of a war? When I say "direct and imminent threat" I'm talking about war being declared or border skirmishes that keep escalating. So if the Pact is a "direct and imminent threat", supporting the opposition in a Pact member that favors peace with the UFP is a good idea for SI.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

if the Pact is a "direct and imminent threat", supporting the opposition in a Pact member that favors peace with the UFP is a good idea for SI.

I don't think so. It would give credence to the Pact's list of reasons why people should hate the Federation, and we don't want that.

Although...

Spoiler: Path of Disharmony

the Pact might be doing the same to the Feds (the spoiler for Path Of Disharmony seems to suggest that the Pact will attempt to strike at a Federation member world itself) so I guess anything's possible.

 

[rahullak]

^
And you think that would overshadow the border skirmishes or the direct conflict they would be engaged in? During war, they don't need a "list of reasons" to rationalize their actions, although I'll admit they would try to use it for whatever propaganda.
In the end, it comes down to the UFP wanting to save lives by ending the conflict as quickly as possible, whether by diplomatic means or failing which by other means such as supporting movements in the Pact that favor peace.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^
And you think that would overshadow the border skirmishes or the direct conflict they would be engaged in? During war, they don't need a "list of reasons" to rationalize their actions, although I'll admit they would try to use it for whatever propaganda.
In the end, it comes down to the UFP wanting to save lives by ending the conflict as quickly as possible, whether by diplomatic means or failing which by other means such as supporting movements in the Pact that favor peace.

Your assuming that there is going to be a full scale war. They could just go the cold war route.

 

[Christopher]

^
Even in the event of a war? When I say "direct and imminent threat" I'm talking about war being declared or border skirmishes that keep escalating. So if the Pact is a "direct and imminent threat", supporting the opposition in a Pact member that favors peace with the UFP is a good idea for SI.

It sounds like you're looking for excuses to rationalize immoral acts. It's always easy enough to convince yourself that "the ends justify the means," but it rarely turns out well in the long run. Better to devote your energies to finding ways to do the right thing rather than looking for rationalizations for doing wrong.

Supporting a party that wants peace is all well and good. Employing dirty tricks and black-ops operations to force events to go the way you want is not "supporting" anything but your own selfish interests and arrogant desire for control. And in so doing, you undermine the legitimacy of any peace party. If their people find out that they only came to power because your spies helped overthrow their opposition (and such secrets never stay secret for long), then they will lose their people's trust and be worthless as an ally. If you really want to support a peaceful opposition, then you need to do it in a way that's aboveboard and respects the sovereign rights of their own people. You need to let them make the choice for themselves, or it will never stick. It would be stupid to employ such tactics to stave off a war in the short term only to guarantee another war later on.

 

[Rush Limborg]

True.

But, there again, it's also important to remember that the view that might become dominant after an event takes place is not always an accurate view; how we interpret history often is determined by which point of view serves the generally-accepted ideologies of the present.

But, also, it's important to bear in mind that something that seemed right to one faction can have seemed wrong to another faction, and then can later turn out quite definitively to have been wrong -- proving the opposition faction to have had better judgment all along, and obligating the previously dominant faction to admit that its judgment was inaccurate (and sometimes even based on delusional value systems).

Like someone said: History is the process by which a culture interprets the meaning of its past.

Ah...hence, the old adage that "history is written by the winners"...and many times, re-written as the winners change over time....

For example, Sargon II of ancient Assyria attacked Jerusalem--and failed. He worded his account like so: "I made King Hezekiah a prisoner in his own city!"

Of course, Hezekiah actually won, Israel survived--and history records Jerusalem as being a "free zone" during this time....

Supporting a party that wants peace is all well and good. Employing dirty tricks and black-ops operations to force events to go the way you want is not "supporting" anything but your own selfish interests and arrogant desire for control. And in so doing, you undermine the legitimacy of any peace party. If their people find out that they only came to power because your spies helped overthrow their opposition (and such secrets never stay secret for long), then they will lose their people's trust and be worthless as an ally. If you really want to support a peaceful opposition, then you need to do it in a way that's aboveboard and respects the sovereign rights of their own people. You need to let them make the choice for themselves, or it will never stick. It would be stupid to employ such tactics to stave off a war in the short term only to guarantee another war later on.

So then, it is better to openly declare support for a freedom movement--and then support and supply said movement--again, openly, thus avoiding all the problems associated with "dirty tricks".

 

[Rush Limborg]

^
And you think that would overshadow the border skirmishes or the direct conflict they would be engaged in? During war, they don't need a "list of reasons" to rationalize their actions, although I'll admit they would try to use it for whatever propaganda.
In the end, it comes down to the UFP wanting to save lives by ending the conflict as quickly as possible, whether by diplomatic means or failing which by other means such as supporting movements in the Pact that favor peace.

Your assuming that there is going to be a full scale war. They could just go the cold war route.

That's practically a given. And I'm guessing there'll be a lot of staring-down and "missile drills" (or more appropriately, torpedo drills), cloak-n-dagger move-and-countermove (SI, yes...but also a lil' Section 31 thrown in for good measure. ), that sorta thing.

 

[Sci]

Supporting a party that wants peace is all well and good. Employing dirty tricks and black-ops operations to force events to go the way you want is not "supporting" anything but your own selfish interests and arrogant desire for control. And in so doing, you undermine the legitimacy of any peace party. If their people find out that they only came to power because your spies helped overthrow their opposition (and such secrets never stay secret for long), then they will lose their people's trust and be worthless as an ally. If you really want to support a peaceful opposition, then you need to do it in a way that's aboveboard and respects the sovereign rights of their own people. You need to let them make the choice for themselves, or it will never stick. It would be stupid to employ such tactics to stave off a war in the short term only to guarantee another war later on.

So then, it is better to openly declare support for a freedom movement--and then support and supply said movement--again, openly, thus avoiding all the problems associated with "dirty tricks".

Although it is also important to note that openly supporting that faction may well undermine that faction's ability to achieve popular support for its goals. For instance, about the worst thing the U.S. could have done for Mir-Hossein Mousavi's faction in Iran after the recent fraudulent electoral victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be to openly support Mousavi; the average Iranian would have taken it to mean that Mousavi is an American stooge and would have supported Ahmadinejad in retaliation. And, as we've established, covert support is unacceptable.

As such, a desire to help a given foreign faction can sometimes obligate a state to do nothing for that faction -- because doing something would only make things worse.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^That is kinda iffy...

Some might say that, as the people were all but begging for American support....

 

[Sci]

^That is kinda iffy...

Some might say that, as the people were all but begging for American support....

They were not. There may have been people on the streets asking for U.S. help, but neither Mousavi nor his lieutenants, nor any of the leaders of the demonstrators, requested U.S. aid.

And, as I said, helping them would have only helped Ahmadinejad by making politically neutral or undecided Iranians think Mousavi is an American puppet and that the U.S. was trying to control their country again. It would have completely backfired had we gotten involved.

 

[Rush Limborg]

So...despite Mamoud's obvious madness...they would take his side against that of potential freedom...and peace?

Guy must be quite a charmer.

 

[Sci]

So...despite Mamoud's obvious madness...

To us, it seems madness. To many Iranians, on the other hand, he may seem either to be a strong leader seeking to enhance Iran's power on the world stage (in which case he would hardly be the first head of government to gain support from appeals to imperial ambitions; we Americans have done the same thing), or to be a needlessly belligerent leader who hurts Iran but is not necessarily insane. Indeed, it would seem that many Mousavi supporters view Ahmadinejad in much the same light that many American liberals viewed George W. Bush: Not insane, but needlessly belligerent and undiplomatic, and a violator of constitutional rights.

(I am not going to argue about the accuracy of the views held by American liberals about Bush -- I state that merely to illustrate a parallel between how two factions in two societies view two leaders.)

they would take his side against that of potential freedom...and peace?

Yes. History has shown time and again that if they feel like an outsider is dominating them, most societies will prefer a domestic bastard to a foreign saint. They value Iranian sovereignty above Iranian liberal democracy; they would prefer Ahmadinejad, warts and all, to someone they perceive as an American puppet. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."

That's why it was important that the U.S. not intervene on Mousavi's side. Mousavi needs to come to power, but he needs to come to power through purely Iranian efforts, or else the Iranian populace will reject him.

 

[Cicero]

^@Christopher
The "instigatory" comment was just me proceeding from one assumption that certain sections of SI might view the Pact as a direct and imminent threat to the Federation. Of course it might not be the case that the Pact is a threat, in which case it would be foolish to cause incidents that might result in more conflict.

It would be even more foolish to cause incidents if they are a threat, because it's just going to make them hate and fear you even more than they do already. History shows that trying to force or manipulate other countries into bowing to your will generally creates more problems than it solves.

Does it? Rome and other great empires (imperial and republican) successfully forced many other countries to bow to their will. Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

Great force, applied decisively, can be very effective, particularly if carried through completely (e.g. Rome's complete elimination of Carthage, the United State's program of cultural assimilation). Whether it is moral - or even possible in a given situation - is another question.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

^@Christopher
The "instigatory" comment was just me proceeding from one assumption that certain sections of SI might view the Pact as a direct and imminent threat to the Federation. Of course it might not be the case that the Pact is a threat, in which case it would be foolish to cause incidents that might result in more conflict.

It would be even more foolish to cause incidents if they are a threat, because it's just going to make them hate and fear you even more than they do already. History shows that trying to force or manipulate other countries into bowing to your will generally creates more problems than it solves.

Does it? Rome and other great empires (imperial and republican) successfully forced many other countries to bow to their will. Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

Great force, applied decisively, can be very effective, particularly if carried through completely (e.g. Rome's complete elimination of Carthage, the United State's program of cultural assimilation). Whether it is moral - or even possible in a given situation - is another question.

Isn'tthe Federation of Star Trek supposted to be ABOVE that sort of stuff though, also the Typhon Pact HASN'T done any official hostile action against the Feds so doing that makes them look like total tools who only care about remaining on top.

 

[Sci]

Does it? Rome and other great empires (imperial and republican) successfully forced many other countries to bow to their will.

Rome fell. To say nothing of the fact that Rome was, as you put it, an empire -- a state built upon violating foreign states' rights. It was not a liberal democracy; it was an empire built on conquest and not one the Federation ought to emulate.

Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

You've just listed policies the U.S. undertook in the past that it absolutely should not have undertaken -- immoral, imperial policies that never benefitted us half as much as policies like the Marshall Plan, policies built on mutual cooperation and partnership.

 

[Cicero]

Isn'tthe Federation of Star Trek supposted to be ABOVE that sort of stuff though, also the Typhon Pact HASN'T done any official hostile action against the Feds so doing that makes them look like total tools who only care about remaining on top.

Does it? Rome and other great empires (imperial and republican) successfully forced many other countries to bow to their will.

Rome fell. To say nothing of the fact that Rome was, as you put it, an empire -- a state built upon violating foreign states' rights. It was not a liberal democracy; it was an empire built on conquest and not one the Federation ought to emulate.

Rome fell, but first it stood for a thousand years. Regardless of its eventual fate, its policies were highly successful at securing stability and safety for Rome itself for hundreds of years. Rome was predominate for a greater time than that in which most nations even exist.

I wasn't suggesting that the Federation emulate it, though. My point was to Christopher's assertion that the application of Force is a policy that will necessarily fail. I agree that it will fail if it is the only policy applied (except when used for annihilation), but do think it can be quite successful if combined with the right element of peaceful cooperation and integration - the arrows and olive branchs of the US seal, if you will. Remember that in World War II, we applied to force to (essentially) two countries, achieved a military victory, and then sustained that victory in peace by offering policies which treated the defeated nations well and brought areas ruined by war back to prosperity (e.g. the Marshall Plan).

Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

You've just listed policies the U.S. undertook in the past that it absolutely should not have undertaken -- immoral, imperial policies that never benefitted us half as much as policies like the Marshall Plan, policies built on mutual cooperation and partnership.[/QUOTE]

I disagree that our early imperial policies benefited us less than the Marshall Plan and other policies of cooperation. I doubt we would be nearly so prosperous today had the bulk of the North American continent not been united and industrialized so quickly - nevermind the initial imperialism integral to our establishment. Whether those policies were moral, is, of course, a separate question. (And one which I'd rather defer.)

Also, US intervention in the Russo-Japanese War earned President Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Isn'tthe Federation of Star Trek supposted to be ABOVE that sort of stuff though, also the Typhon Pact HASN'T done any official hostile action against the Feds so doing that makes them look like total tools who only care about remaining on top.

Rome fell. To say nothing of the fact that Rome was, as you put it, an empire -- a state built upon violating foreign states' rights. It was not a liberal democracy; it was an empire built on conquest and not one the Federation ought to emulate.

Rome fell, but first it stood for a thousand years. Regardless of its eventual fate, its policies were highly successful at securing stability and safety for Rome itself for hundreds of years. Rome was predominate for a greater time than that in which most nations even exist.

I wasn't suggesting that the Federation emulate it, though. My point was to Christopher's assertion that the application of Force is a policy that will necessarily fail. I agree that it will fail if it is the only policy applied (except when used for annihilation), but do think it can be quite successful if combined with the right element of peaceful cooperation and integration - the arrows and olive branchs of the US seal, if you will. Remember that in World War II, we applied to force to (essentially) two countries, achieved a military victory, and then sustained that victory in peace by offering policies which treated the defeated nations well and brought areas ruined by war back to prosperity (e.g. the Marshall Plan).

Even the United States was very successful in the use of force - and, at times, in manipulation - in conquering North America (and in opening Japan to the outside world, ending the Russo-Japanese war, etc.).

You've just listed policies the U.S. undertook in the past that it absolutely should not have undertaken -- immoral, imperial policies that never benefitted us half as much as policies like the Marshall Plan, policies built on mutual cooperation and partnership.

I disagree that our early imperial policies benefited us less than the Marshall Plan and other policies of cooperation. I doubt we would be nearly so prosperous today had the bulk of the North American continent not been united and industrialized so quickly - nevermind the initial imperialism integral to our establishment. Whether those policies were moral, is, of course, a separate question. (And one which I'd rather defer.)

Also, US intervention in the Russo-Japanese War earned President Roosevelt the Nobel Peace Prize.

So your saying the Federation should declare war on the Pact which hasn't done anything to warent it and they wouldn't look like selfinterested dicks who only care about being top dog?

 

[rahullak]

^
Even in the event of a war? When I say "direct and imminent threat" I'm talking about war being declared or border skirmishes that keep escalating. So if the Pact is a "direct and imminent threat", supporting the opposition in a Pact member that favors peace with the UFP is a good idea for SI.

It sounds like you're looking for excuses to rationalize immoral acts. It's always easy enough to convince yourself that "the ends justify the means," but it rarely turns out well in the long run. Better to devote your energies to finding ways to do the right thing rather than looking for rationalizations for doing wrong.

Supporting a party that wants peace is all well and good. Employing dirty tricks and black-ops operations to force events to go the way you want is not "supporting" anything but your own selfish interests and arrogant desire for control. And in so doing, you undermine the legitimacy of any peace party. If their people find out that they only came to power because your spies helped overthrow their opposition (and such secrets never stay secret for long), then they will lose their people's trust and be worthless as an ally. If you really want to support a peaceful opposition, then you need to do it in a way that's aboveboard and respects the sovereign rights of their own people. You need to let them make the choice for themselves, or it will never stick. It would be stupid to employ such tactics to stave off a war in the short term only to guarantee another war later on.

No. Wrong. It sounds like you're blowing this out of proportion unnecessarily. And I find the assumptions you make about me offensive. I'm not going to continue this any further.