The Maquis - where do you stand?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The question is: did the Federation have the RIGHT to cede those worlds against their occupants' wishes?

It wasn't against the occupants' wishes. Remember, it was their idea to live under Cardassian rule in the first place. The Federation wanted to move them, but they chose willingly to stay. They accepted the consequences of that action.

Using the real world as an example: if for some reason a government came to power in the US that offered to cede Texas back to Mexico, wouldn't the Texans have every right to say "Oh HELL no you don't!"

That depends. I don't know if it would be legal to do that. (Plus, we are not fighting a war with Mexico, so there would be no peace treaty to sign, and thus no negotiations to make. I highly doubt that there's anyone left in Mexico today who gives a crap about Texas anyway.) However if the government asked Texans "Either we help you move, now, or you can become Mexican citizens. Choose one or the other." and they chose to stay, then I say they give up their rights, just as the Maquis colonists did.

This of course doesn't excuse what the Cardassians subsequently did, but neither does it place all the blame on the Federation.

 

[neozeks]

Eminent domain is something I believe to be greatly overused, and I would like to see the power curbed to strictly infrastructure. Which this treaty was NOT...it was strictly a political ploy

Overused or not, it is legal. The notion of just what constitutes 'greater good' can be debated but the fact remains that your property rights are not absolute.

Taking the colonies to swap to the Cardassians is akin to the modern wave of "Emminent Domain" takings that serve primarily to enrich powerful land interests who buy off the elected officials with promises of more tax monies, and an ILlegitimate use of the Federation's power.

But the Federation didn't do it in order to 'enrich powerful land interests', it did it to stop a war that claimed a great number of lives (and since they were on the border, the colonists themselves probably suffered the most from the war).

Using the real world as an example: if for some reason a government came to power in the US that offered to cede Texas back to Mexico, wouldn't the Texans have every right to say "Oh HELL no you don't!"

I don't think that's a good example. The Federation didn't cede an entire member homeworld, just a few smallish colonies on the fringe of it's space. It's more like if the US ceded a few border towns back to Mexico.
And remeber, the Cardassians ceded worlds as well, it wasn't just one-sided.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The question is: did the Federation have the RIGHT to cede those worlds against their occupants' wishes?

It wasn't against the occupants' wishes. Remember, it was their idea to live under Cardassian rule in the first place. The Federation wanted to move them, but they chose willingly to stay. They accepted the consequences of that action.

The ONLY planet we know that willingly accepted that was Dorvan V (?). And it still begs the issue of whether or not the Federation had the right to do so in the first place.

Using the real world as an example: if for some reason a government came to power in the US that offered to cede Texas back to Mexico, wouldn't the Texans have every right to say "Oh HELL no you don't!"

That depends. I don't know if it would be legal to do that. (Plus, we are not fighting a war with Mexico, so there would be no peace treaty to sign, and thus no negotiations to make. I highly doubt that there's anyone left in Mexico today who gives a crap about Texas anyway.) However if the government asked Texans "Either we help you move, now, or you can become Mexican citizens. Choose one or the other." and they chose to stay, then I say they give up their rights, just as the Maquis colonists did.

Why would the Federation cede territory to a power that attacked IT to begin with? The Federation doesn't start wars. And you're STILL begging the question of the legitimacy of summarily turning over your citizens' homes to a foreign power.

Eminent domain is something I believe to be greatly overused, and I would like to see the power curbed to strictly infrastructure. Which this treaty was NOT...it was strictly a political ploy

Overused or not, it is legal. The notion of just what constitutes 'greater good' can be debated but the fact remains that your property rights are not absolute.

Nor is the power of Emminent Domain.

Taking the colonies to swap to the Cardassians is akin to the modern wave of "Emminent Domain" takings that serve primarily to enrich powerful land interests who buy off the elected officials with promises of more tax monies, and an ILlegitimate use of the Federation's power.

But the Federation didn't do it in order to 'enrich powerful land interests', it did it to stop a war that claimed a great number of lives (and since they were on the border, the colonists themselves probably suffered the most from the war).

Not the direct point, and you know it. The point is that there was no legitimate "greater good" to be served by taking those colonies in that manner.

Using the real world as an example: if for some reason a government came to power in the US that offered to cede Texas back to Mexico, wouldn't the Texans have every right to say "Oh HELL no you don't!"

I don't think that's a good example. The Federation didn't cede an entire member homeworld, just a few smallish colonies on the fringe of it's space. It's more like if the US ceded a few border towns back to Mexico.

"How many [colonies] does it take before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many [colonies] DOES IT TAKE, Admiral?"

The colonists did no wrong. NO WRONG. The Federation had no right to take what they'd poured their hearts and souls into and treat it like a poker chip in a card game.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The ONLY planet we know that willingly accepted that was Dorvan V (?).

There's no reason to suspect anything other than that for the rest of the colonies.

And it still begs the issue of whether or not the Federation had the right to do so in the first place.

The Federation has the right to negotiate peace treaties.

Why would the Federation cede territory to a power that attacked IT to begin with?

The Cardassians also ceded some of THEIR territory to the Federation.

The point is that there was no legitimate "greater good" to be served by taking those colonies in that manner.

The greater good is the end of the war. Which was achieved.

The problem with the Maquis is that they risked starting the war up again. The Cardassians would, of course, blame the Federation for whatever the Maquis did. The Maquis would have eventually pissed off the Cardassians enough to start the war all over again.

The colonists did no wrong. NO WRONG.

Tell that to the crew of the Bok'Nor. (Or to the ENTIRE POPULATION OF CARDASSIA, had Eddington got his way.)

 

[darkwing_duck1]

The ONLY planet we know that willingly accepted that was Dorvan V (?).

There's no reason to suspect anything other than that for the rest of the colonies.

Nor any reason to assume the same for them.

And it still begs the issue of whether or not the Federation had the right to do so in the first place.

The Federation has the right to negotiate peace treaties.

But does it have the right to summarily give up the lands and homes of it's citizens without their consent?

The Cardassians also ceded some of THEIR territory to the Federation.

Irrelevant.

The point is that there was no legitimate "greater good" to be served by taking those colonies in that manner.

The greater good is the end of the war. Which was achieved.

But does that goal justify the abrogation of the Federation to protect it's citizens' sovereign claim to their lands and homes?

The problem with the Maquis is that they risked starting the war up again. The Cardassians would, of course, blame the Federation for whatever the Maquis did. The Maquis would have eventually pissed off the Cardassians enough to start the war all over again.

If the Federation hadn't given their lands as an act of appeasement to a hostile power there would have been no Maquis.

The colonists did no wrong. NO WRONG.

Tell that to the crew of the Bok'Nor. (Or to the ENTIRE POPULATION OF CARDASSIA, had Eddington got his way.)

The Bok'Nor incident happened AFTER the Federation forced the colonists into forming the Maquis to protect the rights the Federation refused to. If the Federation hadn't stolen their sovereign land rights and traded them to the Cardassians, there would have been no Bok'Nor incident.

By the point Eddington was considering a "genocide" of the Cardassians, those self same Cardassians had already effectively committed genocide on the Maquis and the colonies. If he had succeeded, it would have been a proportionate response to the act perpetrated against him and his people.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Ah, so an entire species deserves to be exterminated because a few stubborn arrogant colonists won't move? How proportionate that is.

The ONLY planet we know that willingly accepted that was Dorvan V (?).

There's no reason to suspect anything other than that for the rest of the colonies.

Nor any reason to assume the same for them.

Yes, there is. We know the citizens of Dorvan V chose to stay where they were, knowing full well what they were in for. If we are to assume anything else for the rest of the colonists, we must have evidence for that. Without evidence, everything else must be assumed to be the same.

What is really important is this guiding principle: the greatest good for the greatest number. Peace is clearly preferable over war, and thus is the answer to that principle: peace for the entire Federation, or war for it.

There are two, and only two, possible outcomes: 1) The colonists accept the Federation's offer, and move to their new homes provided for them (and thus remain Federation citizens). 2) They stay, become Cardassian citizens, and fight, thus causing war. The former choice is clearly the most ethical, because - like I said - in a perfect society such as the Federation, there is an amount of living space that is near infinite. Remember, the Federation didn't just toss the colonists out on their asses. They offered to move them to NEW homes. Home is simply where you lay your hat, as it were.

(To put it another way: even if you accept the legitimacy of the Maquis' claim to "defend their homes" - what good could that possibly do if the resulting war destroys the Federation? You can't defend a home if it's burned to the ground.)

Actually I have another question. Remember "Our Man Bashir"? Eddington is shown, in this episode, to be part of the team working to save Sisko and crew. Given that we know Eddington would later defect to the Maquis, one must ask, why did he do this? The Federation is the enemy of the Maquis. Any Maquis would not care if Federation citizens died. Thus given that Eddington was Maquis - once a traitor, always a traitor - why would he care if the rest of the DS9 crew lived or died?

 

[neozeks]

Nor is the power of Emminent Domain.

I never said it's absolute. But it exists. And is legal.

"How many [colonies] does it take before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many [colonies] DOES IT TAKE, Admiral?"

Yeah, I was kind of expecting that. Depends on the gains. If a war that has caused countless people to die and will cause further people to die can be stopped by giving up a few small colonies, are you seriously saying it's completely wrong to do it? Is land more important than citizens' lives?

The colonists did no wrong. NO WRONG. The Federation had no right to take what they'd poured their hearts and souls into and treat it like a poker chip in a card game.

People whose lands are routinely taken for highways or dams to be built also poured their hearts and souls into their land. It's not a matter of right or wrong.

Nor any reason to assume the same for them.

Well, in fact we do know. Kal Hudson and Sisko say as much in 'The Maquis'.

Irrelevant.

It's relevant in as much that it proves the Federation didn't just give the colonies for 'free', just for appeasement. Both sides made concessions, it was a compromise.

But does that goal justify the abrogation of the Federation to protect it's citizens' sovereign claim to their lands and homes?

Well, that's the crux of the matter. It's a tough call. We don't know enough about the war or it's consequences. But like I said, given that the colonists themselves were on the frontline (just remember Setlik III), I'd say they had more reason to want peace than anyone else.

By the point Eddington was considering a "genocide" of the Cardassians, those self same Cardassians had already effectively committed genocide on the Maquis and the colonies. If he had succeeded, it would have been a proportionate response to the act perpetrated against him and his people.

I have seriously to disagree here. You NEVER respond to genocide with genocide or to war crimes with war crimes. That's simply wrong.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It brings to mind something else: Was there a Cardassian equivalent of the Maquis?

I don't mean the Cardassians who were receiving arms from their government. I meant Cardassian colonists who were being provoked and harassed BY THE HUMANS and thus took up arms to defend *themselves* - the same way the Maquis did.

We know that some human colonies ended up in Cardassian hands, so logically the reverse must also have occurred. Some Cardassians must have found themselves in Federation territory. The very existence of the Maquis proves that there are some humans who harbor unprovoked bigotry and racial hatred against all Cardassians. So then, what if some of the colonies still controlled by humans - which now had Cardassians living in them - were led by such racists?

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

MLB--Have you ever read The Never-Ending Sacrifice? (Una McCormack's novel, not the one in the show.) While there's no mention of an anti-Cardassian Maquis pre-Dominion War, the way Cardassians are treated AFTER the war is very...interesting.

 

[DonIago]

^That one's on my "to read" list.

I think it's entirely possible that the colonists who settled on Dorvan V and other worlds on the border had to agree to some sort of eminent domain policy. In any case, it seems unlikely that they didn't know there was a hostile power nearby who might very well make things difficult for them.

The fact is that we don't know whether the DMZ situation could ultimately have worked itself out because it was never given a chance to, partly because the Maquis destabilized the Cardassians to the point where any hint of a velvet glove was lost in favor of an iron fist (i.e. the Jem'hadar). Had the Detapa Council managed to form a stable and non-backstabbed government, it's possible the DMZ situation might have stabilized...provided the Maquis had in turn acknowledged the reality of the situation they signed themselves up for.

"We want to stay on our world, so we'll agree to live under a hostile government. Oh, agents of that hostile government are being mean to us, so we're going to start attacking their ships and poisoning their planets. Oh, and we're also going to attack the ships of the govenment that abandoned us even though we knew what we were getting into and agreed to it."

I can understand how they were in an undesirable situation, but I have to wonder whether they gave any thought at all to the likely consequences of their actions when they stated engaging in terrorism.

 

[T'Girl]

unprovoked

If the Federation ex-patriots had been treated with parity to the Cardassians colonists who arrived after the planet was transferred to the Cardassian government, there debatably would have been no Maquis.

It's unlikely there would have been a counterpart to the Maquis among the Cardassian's, the Federation would have extended full citizen rights to the Cardassians on the new Federation worlds from day one.

Bigotry and racial hatred?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^ Ah, so an entire species deserves to be exterminated because a few stubborn arrogant colonists won't move? How proportionate that is.

Given that he was at that point a soldier for his people at war with a people who had pretty much wiped out what he considered his homeland, I'd say very proportionate. You could call it vengeful, if you wanted, but not unjustified given Cardassian actions.

And you keep referring to a "few stubborn, arrogant colonists" or variants thereof. Are their rights as Federation citizens to be supported and protected any less because they're colonists? Or few in relative numbers?

Are you truly advocating for the classic "tyrrany of the majority" where whatever the most say is right IS right, no matter how wrong the act is?

What is really important is this guiding principle: the greatest good for the greatest number.

No. That way lies great evil.

Posit: There is a disease making thousands sick. One person is immune to the disease, and a cure can be made from his blood. But to obtain enough blood for the thosands to be cured, he will die from blood loss. There is for whatever reason NO OTHER MEANS to obtain the cure.

You would advocate that it is right for the thousands to seize that man and murder him for their cure. That is a greatly evil thing to say or do. It dehumanizes man, makes him nothing but a means to an end.

Any society that would find that morally acceptable, I submit, is an evil society that does not deserve to endure.

Peace is clearly preferable over war, and thus is the answer to that principle: peace for the entire Federation, or war for it.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains or slavery?" - Patrick Henry

"A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill

"As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." - John Stuart Mill

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
- John Stuart Mill

There are two, and only two, possible outcomes: 1) The colonists accept the Federation's offer, and move to their new homes provided for them (and thus remain Federation citizens). 2) They stay, become Cardassian citizens, and fight, thus causing war. The former choice is clearly the most ethical, because - like I said - in a perfect society such as the Federation, there is an amount of living space that is near infinite.

Then it should have been no problem for the Cardassians to settle elsewhere, rather than having the Federation steal the colonists' homes in their name.

Remember, the Federation didn't just toss the colonists out on their asses. They offered to move them to NEW homes. Home is simply where you lay your hat, as it were.

That is a house. A HOME is what you put your blood, sweat and tears into creating. A HOME is your history, your heritage. What you devote your life to building to (hopefully) leave to future generations as a legacy.

(To put it another way: even if you accept the legitimacy of the Maquis' claim to "defend their homes" - what good could that possibly do if the resulting war destroys the Federation? You can't defend a home if it's burned to the ground.)

What good is the Federation if it refuses to engage in one of the prime responsibilities of any government. To protect the lives and sovereign property of it's citizens?

Actually I have another question. Remember "Our Man Bashir"? Eddington is shown, in this episode, to be part of the team working to save Sisko and crew. Given that we know Eddington would later defect to the Maquis, one must ask, why did he do this? The Federation is the enemy of the Maquis. Any Maquis would not care if Federation citizens died. Thus given that Eddington was Maquis - once a traitor, always a traitor - why would he care if the rest of the DS9 crew lived or died?

Though Eddington was much more bitter than Cal, he didn't really want to fight the Federation, no matter how angry he was with it. His tactics showed that. When he fought against Starfleet, he did all he could to disable, rather than destroy . Otherwise the Defiant and the Malinche would have been so much space dust.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

T'Girl, what I meant by "unprovoked" was that there were already those who hated Cardassians - even before the DMZ ever existed. Ever seen "The Wounded"?

What good is the Federation if it refuses to engage in one of the prime responsibilities of any government. To protect the lives and sovereign property of it's citizens?

Signing the peace treaty, to avoid war with the Cardassians, is the surest way TO protect the lives and property of Federation citizens. A war could destroy the Federation. Why risk that again?

What is really important is this guiding principle: the greatest good for the greatest number.

No. That way lies great evil.

Posit: There is a disease making thousands sick. One person is immune to the disease, and a cure can be made from his blood. But to obtain enough blood for the thosands to be cured, he will die from blood loss. There is for whatever reason NO OTHER MEANS to obtain the cure.

Since that situation is impossible, it is also irrelevant. Any cure that could possibly be made from his blood could be replicated.

Though Eddington was much more bitter than Cal, he didn't really want to fight the Federation, no matter how angry he was with it.

Anger is hatred. If Eddington did not want to fight, then by definition, he would not.

A HOME is your history, your heritage. What you devote your life to building to (hopefully) leave to future generations as a legacy.

If war with the Cardassians (an inevitable result of the Maquis' actions) had carried through to its conclusion, there would BE no legacy, no future generations, so again, it's irrelevant.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Nor is the power of Emminent Domain.

I never said it's absolute. But it exists. And is legal.

Only when it is used correctly. When it is used INcorrectly it ceases to be legal.

"An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so." - Gandhi

"Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all." -MaximilienRobespierre

"How many [colonies] does it take before it becomes wrong? A thousand? Fifty thousand? A million? How many [colonies] DOES IT TAKE, Admiral?"

Yeah, I was kind of expecting that. Depends on the gains. If a war that has caused countless people to die and will cause further people to die can be stopped by giving up a few small colonies, are you seriously saying it's completely wrong to do it? Is land more important than citizens' lives?

I don't know...ask the people of the Sudetenland, or Poland, or France, or Kuwait, or all the people who spent decades under the iron heel of the Soviet Union in the so-called "Warsaw Pact"...

People whose lands are routinely taken for highways or dams to be built also poured their hearts and souls into their land. It's not a matter of right or wrong.

When it's done for ILlegitimate purposes, it IS.

But does that goal justify the abrogation of the Federation to protect it's citizens' sovereign claim to their lands and homes?

Well, that's the crux of the matter. It's a tough call. We don't know enough about the war or it's consequences. But like I said, given that the colonists themselves were on the frontline (just remember Setlik III), I'd say they had more reason to want peace than anyone else.

And it's those SAME colonists who chose to fight the Cardassians when the Federation sold them out.

By the point Eddington was considering a "genocide" of the Cardassians, those self same Cardassians had already effectively committed genocide on the Maquis and the colonies. If he had succeeded, it would have been a proportionate response to the act perpetrated against him and his people.

I have seriously to disagree here. You NEVER respond to genocide with genocide or to war crimes with war crimes. That's simply wrong.

Three letters: M A D

It is not a crime to make a person (or nation) suffer equally to the amount of suffering he inflicts upon you.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It is not a crime to make a person (or nation) suffer equally to the amount of suffering he inflicts upon you.

Yes, it is.

If a serial killer bursts in and murders your entire family, does he then deserve to have his family killed?

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Gandhi

 

[darkwing_duck1]

T'Girl, what I meant by "unprovoked" was that there were already those who hated Cardassians - even before the DMZ ever existed. Ever seen "The Wounded"?

Maxwell didn't "hate" the Cardassians. He just didn't trust them any further than he could toss a Galor. Did he go about proving their perfidy the wrong way. Absolutely. But trying to paint him as a rabid, foaming anti-Cardi bigot is wrong.

What good is the Federation if it refuses to engage in one of the prime responsibilities of any government. To protect the lives and sovereign property of it's citizens?

Signing the peace treaty, to avoid war with the Cardassians, is the surest way TO protect the lives and property of Federation citizens. A war could destroy the Federation. Why risk that again?

They had already fought a war (one the Cardassians started I might add). The Federation won. Why give them ANY such concessions to begin with? If concessions WERE somehow justified, it still didn't give the Federation the right to steal colonial lands.

Essentially what you're saying (to the colonials) is: "Yes, they attacked you. Yes we beat them in battle. Now, in the name of "peace" WE are going to take your homes (that they attacked) and GIVE them to the very people that attacked you."

If you can't see that that is simply WRONG, then your moral compass is broken or absent entirely.

Posit: There is a disease making thousands sick. One person is immune to the disease, and a cure can be made from his blood. But to obtain enough blood for the thosands to be cured, he will die from blood loss. There is for whatever reason NO OTHER MEANS to obtain the cure.

Since that situation is impossible, it is also irrelevant. Any cure that could possibly be made from his blood could be replicated.

You're dodging the question. The posit is that there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain the cure.

Does the majority have an absolute right to do anything whatsoever it wishes to any given minority (person or group) in the name of "the greater good" or not?

Though Eddington was much more bitter than Cal, he didn't really want to fight the Federation, no matter how angry he was with it.

Anger is hatred. If Eddington did not want to fight, then by definition, he would not.

Anger is not hatred. Anger is anger. Hatred can come from anger, but is not anger itself, but a different emotion.

A HOME is your history, your heritage. What you devote your life to building to (hopefully) leave to future generations as a legacy.

If war with the Cardassians (an inevitable result of the Maquis' actions) had carried through to its conclusion, there would BE no legacy, no future generations, so again, it's irrelevant.

You have no basis for that assertion. The mere signing of a treaty doesn't posit that...The treaty between Japan and the Allies ending WWII was not posited on the basis that "there would be no legacy". There was a clear victor imposing conditions on the loser.

The Federation made a fundamental mistake (in accordance with it's somewhat naivite in the 24th century) and tried to treat the issue as a "misunderstanding" rather than naked agression by the Cardassians that merited stern reprocussions.

To use a modern example: they did what Bush 41 did and didn't finish the damn job when they were there the first time.

And it came back to bite them on the ass.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

It is not a crime to make a person (or nation) suffer equally to the amount of suffering he inflicts upon you.

Yes, it is.

If a serial killer bursts in and murders your entire family, does he then deserve to have his family killed?

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Gandhi

The family no, but he himself absolutely. Now if the whole family had been in on the crime, then yes, kill them all.

In this case we are referring to warfare between organized societies. Societies act collectively and suffer collectively from the results of their actions. The Cardassians certainly weren't limiting their actions only to Maquis fighters. To ask the Maquis to so limit themselves is unjust and immoral.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You're dodging the question. The posit is that there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain the cure.

A situation that cannot possibly exist in reality deserves to be dodged.

If war with the Cardassians (an inevitable result of the Maquis' actions) had carried through to its conclusion, there would BE no legacy, no future generations, so again, it's irrelevant.

You have no basis for that assertion. The mere signing of a treaty doesn't posit that...The treaty between Japan and the Allies ending WWII was not posited on the basis that "there would be no legacy". There was a clear victor imposing conditions on the loser.

I should have been more specific. If there was another war, and the Cardassians won, *then* there would have been no legacy, since they would have wiped out every colony in the DMZ - which, I might add, happened anyway. The Cardassians joined the Dominion partly because they were provoked into doing so BY THE MAQUIS.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You're dodging the question. The posit is that there is NO OTHER WAY to obtain the cure.

A situation that cannot possibly exist in reality deserves to be dodged.

Then I will as AGAIN, in the pure form: Does the majority have an absolute right to do anything it wishes (without restriction) to a minority (individual or group) in the name of "the greater good"?

I should have been more specific. If there was another war, and the Cardassians won, *then* there would have been no legacy, since they would have wiped out every colony in the DMZ - which, I might add, happened anyway. The Cardassians joined the Dominion partly because they were provoked into doing so BY THE MAQUIS.

Who were formed as a response to CARDASSIAN violations of the DMZ treaty, violations sponsored and supported materially by the Cardassian government.

Also, losing a battle (or a war) does not automatically invalidate the principles for which it was fought, or the advisability of fighting it.

Would you say, for example, that the Texicans at the Alamo should have just "given up" because they couldn't win?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I agree that the federation betrayed the colonists from the DMZ.

The colonists were federation citizens. The federation has the obligation to protect their right to property, to protect them against cardassian aggression, to protect them against dominion genocide. And the colonists had the right to all of the above.

The federation forgot it had these fundamental obligations toward its citizens because it was 'politically convenient' - disgusting.

With this betrayal, the federation proved that all its lofty ideals are just propaganda, that, in reality, it's just a slave master; any citizens who refuse to slavishly obey big brother's orders become expendable, to be brutalised and, then, sacrificed, in the name of political convenience.


And what's this about the federation losing a future war with the cardassians?
The federation is militarity clearly superior to the cardassians.

It already won a war with the cardassians and - as a result - gave away federation colonies to the cardassians - not only treacherous toward its own citizens, but also ridiculoulsly idiotic.

And future war with the cardassians is VERY LIKELY to be won by the federation.
If, even in these conditions, the federation refuses to stand up for its citizens, then it's useless - worse, it's an opressive tyranny: its so-called ideals are in actuality worthless; being a federation citizens means you're a slave, to be disposed of at big brother's convenience.