Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
^Needless to say, Sci, your interperetation of the film--and mine--rest solely on whether one believes, us being there already, we should've fought it to win--or not.
We should of course have moved immediately to withdraw United States forces from South Vietnam with all deliberate speed. Let the Vietnamese fight their own goddamn civil war and leave our boys out of it. We had no right to be there, and no right to get hundreds of thousands of our boys killed there.
In fact--regarding a war which is clearly a matter of national defense, the stakes are even higher--and thus, it is more clear that all that is neccesary to be done for survival, must be done.
Certainly the Federation has the right to defend itself. But this does not mean that every violence-addicted lunatic's notion of what is "necessary" is actually necessary.
Well, with all respect to Kirk, he's being a bit of a hypocrite when he says that--General Order 24 ring a bell? Not to mention it's nonsensical--so...that means societies must perpetually collapse and crumble, Jim? I don't think you thought that statement out, quite well....
^ General Order 24 *does* ring a bell, actually. It should be noted that neither of the times that it was given (first by Garth, then by Kirk - in different episodes), was it ever actually carried out. There seems to be some doubt as to whether it even exists at all.
For the record, this is what the novels have established about General Order 24:
To start, that it existed in the 2260s.
As with the canon, we do not know the actual written content of General Order 24. We do know, however, of one specific instance in which it was invoked, in the 2007 Star Trek: Vanguard novel Reap the Whirlwind by the TrekBBS's own David Mack:
In 2265, an extremely powerful alien force emerged on a planet that had recently been colonized by a group of settlers who wished to establish their political independence from the Federation and become their own sovereign state. The Federation starships Endeavor and Lovell were in orbit, providing infrastructure assistance to the colonists. A rival Klingon colony had been set up on a neighboring landmass, and the I.K.S. Zin'za was also on site.
The alien force emerged after being transported to the planet through an extremely powerful piece of ancient equipment buried beneath the surface. It proceeded to murder every single man, woman, and child in both colonies, razing every structure and killing all Klingons and Federates.
Realizing that the alien force would shortly be able to use the artifact to transport itself onto populated worlds, the Starfleet commander in orbit invoked General Order 24 and cooperated with the Zin'za: The three starships razed the planet and transformed it into a shell of radioactive glass, thereby destroying the equipment and preventing the overwhelmingly powerful alien from transporting to other words.
This is the only context in which we have ever seen General Order 24 invoked. It is, again, unclear under what other circumstances General Order 24 authorized "glassing" a planetary surface. In this specific instance, however, it was undertaken in circumstances that presented no possibility of civilian death or mass murder, and in which the enemy represented a clear and present danger to other populated planets.
Mack's earlier TNG novel A Time to Kill, published in 2004, revealed that Starfleet had long since renounced the authority to exterminate a planet's surface, and that the practice was now banned by an amendment to the Federation Charter known as the Eminiar Amendment -- implying that Kirk's actions were later decided to have constituted an abuse of the order of such magnitude as to warrant a constitutional ban on such actions.
^Needless to say, Sci, your interperetation of the film--and mine--rest solely on whether one believes, us being there already, we should've fought it to win--or not.
We should of course have moved immediately to withdraw United States forces from South Vietnam with all deliberate speed. Let the Vietnamese fight their own goddamn civil war and leave our boys out of it.
Of course--that is, were the Chinese and the Soviets to do the same, and stop supplying the NVA!
In fact--regarding a war which is clearly a matter of national defense, the stakes are even higher--and thus, it is more clear that all that is neccesary to be done for survival, must be done.
Certainly the Federation has the right to defend itself. But this does not mean that every violence-addicted lunatic's notion of what is "necessary" is actually necessary.
^ General Order 24 *does* ring a bell, actually. It should be noted that neither of the times that it was given (first by Garth, then by Kirk - in different episodes), was it ever actually carried out. There seems to be some doubt as to whether it even exists at all.
For the record, this is what the novels have established about General Order 24:
To start, that it existed in the 2260s.
As with the canon, we do not know the actual written content of General Order 24. We do know, however, of one specific instance in which it was invoked, in the 2007 Star Trek: Vanguard novel Reap the Whirlwind by the TrekBBS's own David Mack:
In 2265, an extremely powerful alien force emerged on a planet that had recently been colonized by a group of settlers who wished to establish their political independence from the Federation and become their own sovereign state. The Federation starships Endeavor and Lovell were in orbit, providing infrastructure assistance to the colonists. A rival Klingon colony had been set up on a neighboring landmass, and the I.K.S. Zin'za was also on site.
The alien force emerged after being transported to the planet through an extremely powerful piece of ancient equipment buried beneath the surface. It proceeded to murder every single man, woman, and child in both colonies, razing every structure and killing all Klingons and Federates.
Realizing that the alien force would shortly be able to use the artifact to transport itself onto populated worlds, the Starfleet commander in orbit invoked General Order 24 and cooperated with the Zin'za: The three starships razed the planet and transformed it into a shell of radioactive glass, thereby destroying the equipment and preventing the overwhelmingly powerful alien from transporting to other words.
This is the only context in which we have ever seen General Order 24 invoked. It is, again, unclear under what other circumstances General Order 24 authorized "glassing" a planetary surface. In this specific instance, however, it was undertaken in circumstances that presented no possibility of civilian death or mass murder, and in which the enemy represented a clear and present danger to other populated planets.
Mack's earlier TNG novel A Time to Kill, published in 2004, revealed that Starfleet had long since renounced the authority to exterminate a planet's surface, and that the practice was now banned by an amendment to the Federation Charter known as the Eminiar Amendment -- implying that Kirk's actions were later decided to have constituted an abuse of the order of such magnitude as to warrant a constitutional ban on such actions.
That proves my original point--Kirk, in his self-righteousness in Ashes, was guilty of hypocrisy when he said what he did. Interestingly enough, when a 31 agent brought the incident up in Cloak, Kirk didn't repudiate his actions. Instead, he shrugged it off, ignoring what she said as though it were somehow irrelevent. (Such, indeed, is a typical response by our heroes to 31's arguements....)
^Needless to say, Sci, your interperetation of the film--and mine--rest solely on whether one believes, us being there already, we should've fought it to win--or not.
We should of course have moved immediately to withdraw United States forces from South Vietnam with all deliberate speed. Let the Vietnamese fight their own goddamn civil war and leave our boys out of it.
That's the Vietnamese's problem, not ours. Meanwhile, there's no virtue in trying to dominate the Vietnamese through a puppet dictator when pretending to fight for "democracy."
For the record, this is what the novels have established about General Order 24:
To start, that it existed in the 2260s.
As with the canon, we do not know the actual written content of General Order 24. We do know, however, of one specific instance in which it was invoked, in the 2007 Star Trek: Vanguard novel Reap the Whirlwind by the TrekBBS's own David Mack:
In 2265, an extremely powerful alien force emerged on a planet that had recently been colonized by a group of settlers who wished to establish their political independence from the Federation and become their own sovereign state. The Federation starships Endeavor and Lovell were in orbit, providing infrastructure assistance to the colonists. A rival Klingon colony had been set up on a neighboring landmass, and the I.K.S. Zin'za was also on site.
The alien force emerged after being transported to the planet through an extremely powerful piece of ancient equipment buried beneath the surface. It proceeded to murder every single man, woman, and child in both colonies, razing every structure and killing all Klingons and Federates.
Realizing that the alien force would shortly be able to use the artifact to transport itself onto populated worlds, the Starfleet commander in orbit invoked General Order 24 and cooperated with the Zin'za: The three starships razed the planet and transformed it into a shell of radioactive glass, thereby destroying the equipment and preventing the overwhelmingly powerful alien from transporting to other words.
This is the only context in which we have ever seen General Order 24 invoked. It is, again, unclear under what other circumstances General Order 24 authorized "glassing" a planetary surface. In this specific instance, however, it was undertaken in circumstances that presented no possibility of civilian death or mass murder, and in which the enemy represented a clear and present danger to other populated planets.
Mack's earlier TNG novel A Time to Kill, published in 2004, revealed that Starfleet had long since renounced the authority to exterminate a planet's surface, and that the practice was now banned by an amendment to the Federation Charter known as the Eminiar Amendment -- implying that Kirk's actions were later decided to have constituted an abuse of the order of such magnitude as to warrant a constitutional ban on such actions.
That proves my original point--Kirk, in his self-righteousness in Ashes, was guilty of hypocrisy when he said what he did. Interestingly enough, when a 31 agent brought the incident up in Cloak, Kirk didn't repudiate his actions. Instead, he shrugged it off, ignoring what she said as though it were somehow irrelevent.
We should of course have moved immediately to withdraw United States forces from South Vietnam with all deliberate speed. Let the Vietnamese fight their own goddamn civil war and leave our boys out of it.
We had every right to respond. We should have exposed to all of the world the acts of Soviet and Chinese imperialism, and we should have condemned them in the halls of the United Nations. We should have moved to push for international sanctions. There are plenty of options for responding to their actions that would not have required us to engage in imperialism ourselves.
Meanwhile, hey, guess what? North Vietnam was not a threat our national security. Our involvement in Vietnam was an act of aggression and imperialism. It was illegitimate and immoral.
Sure, Kirk's a hypocrite sometimes.
But he's also right when he says that there are some moral lines society should never, ever cross.
We had every right to respond. We should have exposed to all of the world the acts of Soviet and Chinese imperialism, and we should have condemned them in the halls of the United Nations. We should have moved to push for international sanctions. There are plenty of options for responding to their actions that would not have required us to engage in imperialism ourselves.
We had every right to respond. We should have exposed to all of the world the acts of Soviet and Chinese imperialism, and we should have condemned them in the halls of the United Nations. We should have moved to push for international sanctions. There are plenty of options for responding to their actions that would not have required us to engage in imperialism ourselves.
We had every right to respond. We should have exposed to all of the world the acts of Soviet and Chinese imperialism, and we should have condemned them in the halls of the United Nations. We should have moved to push for international sanctions. There are plenty of options for responding to their actions that would not have required us to engage in imperialism ourselves.
So if the Chinese and Soviets prop up one side over the other--thereby giving the North a clear and blatant military advantage over the South--it must be held that the Vietnamese "chose" communism.
But if we prop up the other side...it's "controlling" Vietnam's fate.
Yes. And this was wrong of him.
And he was also right when he said that there are some lines society should never, ever cross.
So if the Chinese and Soviets prop up one side over the other--thereby giving the North a clear and blatant military advantage over the South--it must be held that the Vietnamese "chose" communism.
But if we prop up the other side...it's "controlling" Vietnam's fate.
No. If the Soviet or Chinese militaries are doing the same things we were, it's controlling them in both cases.
But you speak as though "success" would be preventing Vietnam from becoming a Communist country. In my above statement, I'm explaining that even if Soviet and Chinese intervention is thwarted, one must be prepared to accept the possibility that the Vietnamese would chose Communism -- and that this is not something we have the right to deny them.
Meanwhile, none of this changes the fact that propping up a puppet dictator in the south isn't justified, and that we shouldn't have been intervening in their country.
But he's still right when he says there are some moral lines society should never, ever cross.
So if the Chinese and Soviets prop up one side over the other--thereby giving the North a clear and blatant military advantage over the South--it must be held that the Vietnamese "chose" communism.
But if we prop up the other side...it's "controlling" Vietnam's fate.
You're putting words in my mouth once again, Sci. If you go back, you'll notice that I was talking about the intervention on the other side.
My point was that I seriously doubt the UN would have either been inclined or capable of putting a stop to the Soviets or the Chinese, and their intervention. Thus, calling for sanctions would have been fruitless. Were not the Soviets a permanent member of the Security Council? Did they not have veto power?
But he's still right when he says there are some moral lines society should never, ever cross.
My point was that Kirk was one to talk about lines not being crossed--when he was inconsistent on those lines. I have not--nor have I ever--argued that lines cannot be debated.
So if the Chinese and Soviets prop up one side over the other--thereby giving the North a clear and blatant military advantage over the South--it must be held that the Vietnamese "chose" communism.
But if we prop up the other side...it's "controlling" Vietnam's fate.
You're putting words in my mouth once again, Sci. If you go back, you'll notice that I was talking about the intervention on the other side.
My point was that I seriously doubt the UN would have either been inclined or capable of putting a stop to the Soviets or the Chinese, and their intervention.
My point was that Kirk was one to talk about lines not being crossed--when he was inconsistent on those lines. I have not--nor have I ever--argued that lines cannot be debated.
Yes. And my point was that it does not matter that Kirk was hypocritical; what matters is that there are moral lines that should never, ever be crossed.
You're putting words in my mouth once again, Sci. If you go back, you'll notice that I was talking about the intervention on the other side.
My point was that I seriously doubt the UN would have either been inclined or capable of putting a stop to the Soviets or the Chinese, and their intervention.
If the Chinese and Soviets prop up one side over the other--thereby giving the North a clear and blatant military advantage over the South--we have to accept it.
But if we dare give support to the other side, even if only to maintain the balance...it's "controlling" Vietnam's fate.
If they engage in imperialistic takeovers--tough. We don't dare stop them. Balance of power means nothing. Our being one of the two superpowers--our keeping the world from oppression by the other--means nothing. Keeping the Soviets in check means nothing--because if we dare use force to put a stop to their force, it's "imperialism". So let them expand, and gain more power in the world. What do we care?
No, it's not. It just means there are different ideas about what those lines are. Which is, after all, what we're debating right now.
My point was that Kirk was one to talk about lines not being crossed--when he was inconsistent on those lines. I have not--nor have I ever--argued that lines cannot be debated.
Yes. And my point was that it does not matter that Kirk was hypocritical; what matters is that there are moral lines that should never, ever be crossed.
You're putting words in my mouth once again, Sci. If you go back, you'll notice that I was talking about the intervention on the other side.
My point was that I seriously doubt the UN would have either been inclined or capable of putting a stop to the Soviets or the Chinese, and their intervention.
If the Chinese and Soviets prop up one side over the other--thereby giving the North a clear and blatant military advantage over the South--we have to accept it.
But if we dare give support to the other side, even if only to maintain the balance...it's "controlling" Vietnam's fate.
Don't be ridiculous. We weren't just "giving support." We were fighting the war primarily. We were invading territory and burning villages and killing civilians in the name of saving them, and we were propping up a South Vietnamese dictatorship to do it.
If they engage in imperialistic takeovers--tough. We don't dare stop them. Balance of power means nothing. Our being one of the two superpowers--our keeping the world from oppression by the other--means nothing. Keeping the Soviets in check means nothing--because if we dare use force to put a stop to their force, it's "imperialism". So let them expand, and gain more power in the world.
Except, of course, that when the Vietnam War ended, nothing of the sort took place. Indeed, Vietnam ended up not being a Chinese or Soviet puppet state because, hey, guess what? They'd just thought a war to end French and American domination of their country, and they weren't about to let the Russians or Chinese replace them.
And it was Vietnam that finally deposed the Khmer Rouge. Let's not forget that part.
Letting the North Vietnamese win did nothing to hurt American national security.
^Good for them. So assume that that's going to be the case, then? Assume that's going to be the rule? Again--allow the Soviets and the Chinese to influence another nation's affairs, regardless of what happens afterwards? We would not know what would happen--it is arrogant to hope for the best, like that.
You want to argue that Vietnam did not become a puppet state? I counter: if that was the case--we got lucky.
Extending this into Trek: recall "A Private Little War" (TOS)--the show's direct analogy to Vietnam. The Klingons already interfered in the planet's development. The arguement that the Prime Directive applied was therefore erroneous and invalid. Kirk thus realized he had to do what was necessary to restore the balance of power--and armed Tyree's side.
Besides...isn't the argument against American "imperialism" that we set up "puppet regimes"?
^Good for them. So assume that that's going to be the case, then? Assume that's going to be the rule? Again--allow the Soviets and the Chinese to influence another nation's affairs, regardless of what happens afterwards? We would not know what would happen--it is arrogant to hope for the best, like that.
You want to argue that Vietnam did not become a puppet state? I counter: if that was the case--we got lucky.
Tough shit. That doesn't give us the right to set up puppet dictatorships and dominate those countries. If we want to help the other side, we should at most be doing what we did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan or in Libya last year: Arming the locals but letting them take the lead in deciding what happens to their own country.
^Under most circumstances, I would agree. In this case, I would have also cut off the supply lines from the Soviets and the Chinese--which LBJ, in his obsession over "limited war", failed to do.
Yeah, so I figure Section 31 doesn't make itself known to Starfleet officers that aren't likely to accept the necessity of their existence and the need to work with them to secure the Federation's continued existence. Their lack of official recognition makes it easier for their supporters to keep their existence secret from the Federation's enemies and all the Federation people who seem to have thrown pragmatism out the window in favor of holding their principles at all costs, even when it makes no sense at all.
