What's your take on Section 31?

[sonak]

Not always true. Sometimes the presence of the stick is all you need to prevent trouble.

Like when? Besides the Cold War - which was in its own way devastating and not particularly cold - did having weapons act as a deterrent? I mean, you can say any number of platitudes that sound good, but they don't work. They don't exist. People who have guns - whether in the home or on military scale - tend to want to use them. History does show that pretty clearly.

Massive ideological divides drove the South to succession. In Lincoln's mind a divided state served no ones best interest. The endgame was a united country and a the ending of slavery in the U.S. and it's territories. It's in the eye-of-the-beholder whether or not it was beneficial in the long run. In my personal opinion, the Civil War was inevitable and it was beneficial.

I do think the Civil War is debatable and mainly comes down to two sides who's cultural differences made them just want to kill each other with slavery as peripheral issues, but I'll hand it to you. And I'll also hand you a number of Revolutionary wars including our own. But I think Egypt and India prove that there are other means to freedom from tyranny. But that's still a small handful compared to the vast number of conflicts that even the United States has been in the last century - which has been in a constant state of military aggression in one way or another. Statistically your argument doesn't hold up.

Believing in security and preparedness doesn't make one a "hawk," an "imperialist," or some other boogeyman term.

You can frame it that way, but taking a look at how our weapons are used you would be completely wrong. You think you're being realistic, but it's you who's the idealist - thinking that trillions of dollars of weapons are just for defense.

Hmmm... the old "when you have a hammer..." expression huh? I guess that could come into play, but I bet there are examples of nations with pretty big defense budgets that don't go around starting wars very often. (The U.S. skews this because it does have a massive defense budget and fights a lot of wars)

I just think the more prepared and secure you are, the greater your range of options. Look at how well the international disarmament movement following WWI worked out. Some nations decided to disarm, others went the other way. Guess what happened when it came time for the disarming nations to confront aggressors?

 

[BillJ]

I do think the Civil War is debatable and mainly comes down to two sides who's cultural differences made them just want to kill each other with slavery as peripheral issues, but I'll hand it to you. And I'll also hand you a number of Revolutionary wars including our own. But I think Egypt and India prove that there are other means to freedom from tyranny. But that's still a small handful compared to the vast number of conflicts that even the United States has been in the last century - which has been in a constant state of military aggression in one way or another. Statistically your argument doesn't hold up.

Don't move the goalposts. You said to name one and I did.

You can frame it that way, but taking a look at how our weapons are used you would be completely wrong. You think you're being realistic, but it's you who's the idealist - thinking that trillions of dollars of weapons are just for defense.

I don't know. Outside of two terror attacks in NYC and the attack on the Pentagon, there have been no attacks on American soil in my lifetime.

Regardless of how you'd like it to be... I think that the U.S. being proactive in other parts of the world has helped make us safer at home. So yes, trillions of dollars in defense sometimes used offensively has helped keep the peace here.

I worry more about being hit by a drunk driver walking down the street than I do about terrorist attacks or someone coming here to start a war with bombing runs.

We've mishandled some things along the way, we've done some good. We're human.

 

[Rojixus]

Sonak. You think that their are a lot of things that other non-western countries don't understand about us, why we do this and that, wishing that you could knock some sense into them. I don't think they have to...there are things that you don't understand about them that you find terrifying or you don't like. But I think we could come together and share things that we do understand and like doing...things that we have in common. Maybe dancing and eating traditional food from of their cultures and sharing stories about their families and life in general and if you take the time to look, it's all pretty much the same across cultures. Focus on the things that we do agree on and like doing together...enjoy it together. As the ancient Celtics said: "never give a sword to man that can't dance".

You can't base a relationship of deciets, lies and fear! It will never work out. Not in a million years!

Last I recall, the Celts were subjugated by the Romans who didn't give a damn whether their soldiers could dance or not. You can't get what you want by having tea parties with your enemies. Sometimes you have to use naked aggression and force to accomplish your goals. If your enemies wont do what you tell them, you beat it into their heads. If their skulls get caved in as a result, so be it. They can curse God for making them stupid and weak.

When you boil things down to their base elements, there is only one rule: the Rule of the Strong. The strong prosper and the weak perish or are made to serve the strong. That is how things are, that is how they've always been, and that is how it always will be.

However, I still do not support S31 because they do their deeds in secret. Why don't they go public with their actions? Is it because they are afraid of the public backlash? If so, they know their actions are wrong. Instead of taking their case to the public and convincing them of the necessity of their actions, S31 hides in the shadows wallowing in their own hypocrisy.

If your ideals and your actions don't match, either your ideals are wrong or your actions are wrong. To say one thing and do the opposite is the basic definition of hypocrisy. If you're going to do something you think is morally dubious, either cop to it and change your ideals accordingly or don't do the action in the first place; you can't have it both ways.

If the writers wanted to make the Federation look "darker and edgier" and become another Battlestar Galactica clone, they should have made S31 a part of the Federation government instead of a secret cabal accountable to no one. As I and others have said, S31 is utterly redundant. There is nothing Section 31 does that Starfleet Intelligence doesn't already do. If Federation ideals are so weak that the Federation has to be preserved with methods that go against its very nature, then the Federation must be torn down and built anew.

 

[Mark 2000]

I don't know. Outside of two terror attacks in NYC and the attack on the Pentagon, there have been no attacks on American soil in my lifetime.

LOL. Total Post Hoc. And it's pretty well established that those attacks where first made possible by Regan's funding of the Mujahidin, and then Bill Clinton failed to prevent them with one misplaced bomb after another that further killed our standing in the region. So much for being proactive.

And, of course, lets just name a few proactive military operations that were against people trying to hurt us in the past 50 years.

Panama - nope
Columbia - nope
Korea - nope
Vietnam - nope
Somalia - nope
Iraq - nope
Serbia - nope
Iran - nope
Chile - nope
Dominican Republic - nope
The Congo - nope
Brazil - nope
Greece - nope

Uh! This is exhausting. Here, go look through this and just "nope" to the end of every single one except WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations

BTW, good job subtly changing your argument from simply having a large military to using it proactively as a way of keeping us safe from attack. You've actually proved my point that if you have something you will to use it. Thanks!

 

[DonIago]

If the writers wanted to make the Federation look "darker and edgier" and become another Battlestar Galactica clone, they should have made S31 a part of the Federation government instead of a secret cabal accountable to no one. As I and others have said, S31 is utterly redundant. There is nothing Section 31 does that Starfleet Intelligence doesn't already do. If Federation ideals are so weak that the Federation has to be preserved with methods that go against its very nature, then the Federation must be torn down and built anew.

As I already mentioned, S31 can and will do things that SI would never condone (though of course we have no idea what SI might get into without appropriate oversight). S31 has deliberately sabotaged developing races' FTL capabilities, they attempted to commit genocide, they executed Federation citizens. These are not things that SI does, unless there's a hell of a lot more to SI than televised Trek is showing us.

In any event, I'd think the Bashir-Sloan dialogues have made it eminently clear that we're talking about a fundamental difference of opinion. Bashir thinks the Federation can be great without S31, while Sloan believes it can't survive without S31.

 

[BillJ]

BTW, good job subtly changing your argument from simply having a large military to using it proactively as a way of keeping us safe from attack. You've actually proved my point that if you have something you will to use it. Thanks!

You go live in your fantasy world where the U.S. plays pattie-cake with those it doesn't agree with. Which one will you be living in?

The one where slavery is alive and well?
The one where the Japanese control the West Coast?
The one where the Germans control the country and have systematically eliminated the Jews, the Gays and the Blacks from the world's population?

I can go on and on and on and on...

Like I've said in my earlier post...

I worry more about being hit by a drunk driver walking down the street than I do about terrorist attacks or someone coming here to start a war with bombing runs.

We've mishandled some things along the way, we've done some good. We're human.

I'd rather live in this world than your fantasyland.

 

[Rojixus]

If the writers wanted to make the Federation look "darker and edgier" and become another Battlestar Galactica clone, they should have made S31 a part of the Federation government instead of a secret cabal accountable to no one. As I and others have said, S31 is utterly redundant. There is nothing Section 31 does that Starfleet Intelligence doesn't already do. If Federation ideals are so weak that the Federation has to be preserved with methods that go against its very nature, then the Federation must be torn down and built anew.

As I already mentioned, S31 can and will do things that SI would never condone (though of course we have no idea what SI might get into without appropriate oversight). S31 has deliberately sabotaged developing races' FTL capabilities, they attempted to commit genocide, they executed Federation citizens. These are not things that SI does, unless there's a hell of a lot more to SI than televised Trek is showing us.

In any event, I'd think the Bashir-Sloan dialogues have made it eminently clear that we're talking about a fundamental difference of opinion. Bashir thinks the Federation can be great without S31, while Sloan believes it can't survive without S31.

And what has Section 31 accomplished as a result? They accomplished nothing at all despite their willingness to go against their vaunted ideals in order to preserve them.

 

[sonak]

If the writers wanted to make the Federation look "darker and edgier" and become another Battlestar Galactica clone, they should have made S31 a part of the Federation government instead of a secret cabal accountable to no one. As I and others have said, S31 is utterly redundant. There is nothing Section 31 does that Starfleet Intelligence doesn't already do. If Federation ideals are so weak that the Federation has to be preserved with methods that go against its very nature, then the Federation must be torn down and built anew.

As I already mentioned, S31 can and will do things that SI would never condone (though of course we have no idea what SI might get into without appropriate oversight). S31 has deliberately sabotaged developing races' FTL capabilities, they attempted to commit genocide, they executed Federation citizens. These are not things that SI does, unless there's a hell of a lot more to SI than televised Trek is showing us.

In any event, I'd think the Bashir-Sloan dialogues have made it eminently clear that we're talking about a fundamental difference of opinion. Bashir thinks the Federation can be great without S31, while Sloan believes it can't survive without S31.

But WHY can't SI do these things? They've already shown admirals willing to go to extremes in the defense of the UFP, I can't believe all of Starfleet is staffed with pie-in-the-sky idealists. If they wanted to make Trek "darker and edgier," but also keep the realism, they'd have an actual Starfleet organization be doing this extreme stuff, NOT bring in some secret, shadowy organization.

 

[DonIago]

Rojixus - They apparently kept at least one hostile race from developing warp drive. Their anti-changeling virus did allow Odo to negotiate peace with the Dominion. Their methods are certainly lacking, but even the Federation apparently wasn't able to argue with their results.

Sonak - Either SI can't do these things becaue they have stronger morals than S31, or they can't do these things because they're overseen by individuals/groups that have stronger morals. It really depends on how much integrity you believe SI possesses. In any case, they didn't have Starfleet do these things precisely because the point was that Starfleet should NOT be doing these things.

 

[sonak]

Rojixus - They apparently kept at least one hostile race from developing warp drive. Their anti-changeling virus did allow Odo to negotiate peace with the Dominion. Their methods are certainly lacking, but even the Federation apparently wasn't able to argue with their results.

Sonak - Either SI can't do these things becaue they have stronger morals than S31, or they can't do these things because they're overseen by individuals/groups that have stronger morals. It really depends on how much integrity you believe SI possesses. In any case, they didn't have Starfleet do these things precisely because the point was that Starfleet should NOT be doing these things.

well, fair enough, but I'm not sure about how much "integrity" one possesses to allow another, supposedly unafilliated organization to do dirty work that benefits them, but won't either come right out and bring them into an official Starfleet capacity or actively work against them as dangerous.

"our morals don't allow us to do stuff like that! Sure we can benefit from it, and look the other way, but that's totally different!"

 

[Paradon]

WW II got started because the Allies were trying to tell Germany how they should run their country and they were forced to sign a humiliating treaty where they had to give up part of their territories. Basically, they were interfering in Germany politics and affairs that it pissed off the German. Hitler saw the opportunities and in a sequence of brilliant speeches, promising the people a way out of poverty and to make Germany strong again, he managed to captivate the German people and gain support for him to rise to power...and the rest as they say it is history. This is exactly my point. The more you interfere in other countries affairs and politics, the more you screw them over and eventually yourselves (like WW II, which dragged in everyone eventually, even the U.S.). It's metaphysics. What's go around come around? You pissed people off...it's going to catch up with you. Maybe not now, but sooner or later. The problems that we are seeing in the third worlds are the result of hundreds of years of colonialism.

Whether people like it or not, spying on other countries is just as unethical and immoral as eves dropping on an individual. The more lies and dishonesty you create, the more and more distrust the people have. Mar Twain said: if you want to lead and want the people to follow you, tell the truth and they will follow you to the end. Nobody likes liars!

We get frustrated because we think they're are things that they don't understand about us that you wished they do. But, they don't have to... There are things that you don't understand about them. You just have to accept them for who they are and find common things that we really enjoy doing together and share our experiences. Unless you like to be the one in the corner, starring and looking in with mistrust.

 

[DonIago]

Rojixus - They apparently kept at least one hostile race from developing warp drive. Their anti-changeling virus did allow Odo to negotiate peace with the Dominion. Their methods are certainly lacking, but even the Federation apparently wasn't able to argue with their results.

Sonak - Either SI can't do these things becaue they have stronger morals than S31, or they can't do these things because they're overseen by individuals/groups that have stronger morals. It really depends on how much integrity you believe SI possesses. In any case, they didn't have Starfleet do these things precisely because the point was that Starfleet should NOT be doing these things.

well, fair enough, but I'm not sure about how much "integrity" one possesses to allow another, supposedly unafilliated organization to do dirty work that benefits them, but won't either come right out and bring them into an official Starfleet capacity or actively work against them as dangerous.

"our morals don't allow us to do stuff like that! Sure we can benefit from it, and look the other way, but that's totally different!"

IIRC Odo made exactly that point to Sisko in WYLB. Neither of them was happy about it.

Then again, it's not as though Sisko exactly had the high ground after his Romulan shenanigans in ITPM.

Of course, morals are relative things too, which is part of the problem. We can't say S31 necessarily acts immorally because there's no objective morality, but I'm reasonably sure that they violate Federation law on a regular basis.

 

[DWF]

If the writers wanted to make the Federation look "darker and edgier" and become another Battlestar Galactica clone, they should have made S31 a part of the Federation government instead of a secret cabal accountable to no one.

Why would the Star Trek writers want to make Star Trek a clone of a series that didn't exist yet?

 

[Rojixus]

If the writers wanted to make the Federation look "darker and edgier" and become another Battlestar Galactica clone, they should have made S31 a part of the Federation government instead of a secret cabal accountable to no one.

Why would the Star Trek writers want to make Star Trek a clone of a series that didn't exist yet?

Good point, I completely forgot about that fact! However, the core of my argument still stands.

 

[DWF]

Well I didn't think Section 31 was necessary either, Starfleet didn't some dirty secrets department. And what's worse is that, Section 31 was used to help retcon the end of the Dominion war instead of the Federation winning though tactical intelligence or sheer briliance or even just persistance they used an underhannded way to infect the Founders. And I didn't like how Sisko didn't seem to mind, I mean he didn't protest the use of one his officers to kill offf the Founders, almsot as though he agreed with the plan.

 

[DonIago]

1) S31 was not part of Starfleet. Even during Enterprise S31 was considered a rogue organization.

2) I don't know where anyone would get the impression, watching the episodes, that Sisko was okay with what S31 did to the Founders -or- the Federation's decision not to do anything about it. That being said, as I pointed out, Sisko hardly has the moral high ground given how he pulled the wool over the Romulans' eyes.

 

[DWF]

1) S31 was not part of Starfleet. Even during Enterprise S31 was considered a rogue organization.

2) I don't know where anyone would get the impression, watching the episodes, that Sisko was okay with what S31 did to the Founders -or- the Federation's decision not to do anything about it. That being said, as I pointed out, Sisko hardly has the moral high ground given how he pulled the wool over the Romulans' eyes.

Section 31 was started by Starfleet, that's been established earlier in this thread. Ans since Sisko didn't speak up or protest what was done to Odo what do we really know what he thought of it? Since nobody outside of Sisko and Garak know about how the Romulans were brought into the war there's little worry about on that front, since neither one of them will talk about it.

 

[Mr Silver]

Section 31 wasn't started by Starfleet. It was started by a group of rogue Earth citizens. When the Starfleet charter was established, 31 took Article 14, Section 31, that makes allowances for "bending the rules" during times of extraordinary threats as their name and as a description of what they believe they do.

Starfleet had no jurisdiction over Section 31 and the organisation itself never truthfully claimed it was a branch of Starfleet (Sloan and others used this as a pretext to recruit the likes of Bashir). I like to think of 31 as being the Federation's equivalent to the Obsidian Order. Although Section 31 isn't "reluctantly" accepted like the Obsidian Order is.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Section 31 is a criminal organization that is only out to protect ITS OWN interests. They care nothing for the Federation or the rule of law. They have no right to exist. The Starfleet charter was clearly never meant to give legitimacy to Section 31 as we have seen it.

In the end, there is nothing that Section 31 can - should - do, that Starfleet Intelligence cannot. SI is a legitimate organization, with accountability. It answers to the Federation government. Section 31 quite literally answers to NO ONE but themselves. Does no one see how scary that is? S31 can, in the most literal sense, do whatever they want. An organization like that, is in direct conflict with the very principles of freedom and democracy.

 

[T'Girl]

WW II got started because the Allies were trying to tell Germany how they should run their country

WWII started in Europe because Germany invaded Poland.

they were forced to sign a humiliating treaty where they had to give up part of their territories.

Germany agreed to sign the Treaty of Versailles after they invade Belgium, Luxembourg and France, but then lost the resulting war.

Basically, they were interfering in Germany politics and affairs that it pissed off the German.

Well that certainly explain those 90 million dead people all over Europe, the Germans were just "pissed off."

Hitler saw the opportunities and in a sequence of brilliant speeches, promising the people a way out of poverty and to make Germany strong again

Plus they would get to kill lots of Jews.

This is exactly my point.

Really?

which dragged in everyone eventually, even the U.S.

Germany declared war on America.

The problems that we are seeing in the third worlds are the result of hundreds of years of colonialism.

You don't think modern day corruption and poor leadership might just a teensy little bit to do with it?

Mar Twain said: if you want to lead and want the people to follow you, tell the truth and they will follow you to the end.

I don't think Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) ever said that.