Food for thought regarding Typhon Pact

[Ian Keldon]

Your world is very black and white isn't it ?

What is right and what is wrong is usually pretty obvious.

I presume you don't see America's (and much of the West's) unconditional support of Israel as being in any way responsible for the problems in the Middle East ?

A free and soverign Israel in it's own homeland is only a downpayment on the blood debt the entire world owes the Jewish people for thousands of years prejudice and persecution, culminating in the Holocaust.

I agree that the UN is pretty hopeless at times - it hardly covered itself with glory in the Balkans for instance.

Darfur, Somalia, and a host of other places.

In the real world, Soviet Russia was literally terrified of the West and the whole cold war intelligence effort was driven by responding to the perceived threat rather than being simply aggressive. How different is the Romulan situation ?

Let's see, the Russians:

1. were willing members of the Axis. As an Axis power, they committed the same sorts of atrocities their German counterparts did, on an even bigger scale, at least until Germany stabbed them in the back (much like the Dominion did Cardassia).

THEN they switched sides (again like Cardassia).

2. After the war, they refused to free the lands they'd taken. They formed a bogus "Warsaw Pact" that ruled Eastern Europe in an iron fist. They routinely spied upon and attempted to subvert western civilization, all the while committing massive atrocities against their own citizens. (Look up how many people Stalin alone is responsible for the deaths of, as just one example.)

So I shed no tears for the Soviet Union. They were indeed an evil empire, and we should have listened to Patton and finished them off while we had the chance.

I know it's de rigeur on a Trek board to buy into GR's "we can all get along" absolutism, but reality is not Star Trek, and in terms of Trek fic, the reality is that the Pact is just another Big Bad, as many of us knew it was going to be.

Heck, don't just take my word for it. Let's go to the source. From Keith R. A. DeCandido, the author who created the Typhon Pact along with Marco Palmieri:

The idea was to come up with a logical outgrowth of the devastation we got in Destiny. The Pact didn't come together in order to become an antagonist to the Federation. Quite the opposite: they were inspired by the Federation. In the wake of the Borg invasion, the powers are all less than they were, but as allies they can shore up each others' weaknesses.

As Sonek Pran said at the end of A Singular Destiny when the Pact formed, their motivation is not dissimilar to that of the humans, Vulcans, Andorians, and Tellarites who formed the Federation.

You don't see the Federation going around and doing what the Pact has been doing lately as a primary action. Their surveillance, espionage, etc has been an entirely defensive response to Pact crimes and aggression.

What legitimate interest gives the Pact the right to sabotage Federation research? Spy on their engine research programs? What legitimate interest gives them the right to do what they've done recently?

Concerns over the Federation's development of a quantum sliptream FTL drive that would make warp drive obsolete and theoretically allow Federation forces to make first strikes are legitimate.

1. Warp drive suddenly doesn't work any more?

2. The Federation doesn't do those sorts of things absent a provocation...the sort of which every member of the Pact has committed at one time or another, and the Pact just did in spades at Bajor. A QS equipped Starfleet is no threat to any power that respects the rights of sentience and doesn't threaten galactic peace in general or the Federation in particular.

For that matter, the Breen alone are notorious for their use of slave labor, general treachery, and most seriously their willing alliance with the Dominion against the Federation.

The Federation's allies in the Khitomer Accords aren't exactly flawless, you'll note. The Ferengi have a reputation as overly aggressive and unscrupulous merchanters who kept the female proportion of their population naked and uneducated until recently, while the Cardassians were rigid brutal imperialists whose desire for universal dominion triggered a catastrophic multi-quadrant war and even now the Klingons are still trying to conquer independent species for their own aggrandizement.

What does it say about the Federation that these are its key allies? Yes, they are reforming their ways to various degrees and in various ways, but still.[/quote]

I agree that the Federation has made some questionable alliances, and should reconsider them.

I see no problem with Christopher and the other pro contributors to "The Typhon Pact" storyline putting most of their energies into the next TP novels rather that attempting to debate endlessly with TrekBBS denizens.

The story they THINK they're telling and the story they're ACTUALLY telling are two different things.

I don't think they planned it this way per-se, but that's the way it turned out...the only way it COULD turn out realistically, given the nature of the races in the Pact as evidenced by their past acts.

Exactly. And we've seen plenty of examples of rogue elements within the UFP (the Genesis Wave, Section 31, the Maquis, Insurrection) which to outsiders make the whole of the UFP "the enemy".

The difference is that the Federation deals with it's "rogues", sometimes even when it shouldn't have forced them into going rouge in the first place.

If the Federation had done it's sovereign duty to protect the homes and lives of the border colonists along the Cardassian frontier and not sold them out in the name of a sham "peace treaty" (which the Cardies promptly started subverting), then there would have been no need for the Maquis.

And Sci, you couldn't be more wrong on Iraq, but the necessary lengthy explanation of how and why would probably get me in trouble for going too far OT.

 

[Sci]

And Sci, you couldn't be more wrong on Iraq, but the necessary lengthy explanation of how and why would probably get me in trouble for going too far OT.

Ian Keldon: Condemning acts of Cardassian imperialism and aggression while defending the same from the United States and Israel!

But tell me: Have you read Plagues of Night? 'Cos if so, you may have noticed that the events in the Bajor system

Spoiler: Plagues of Night

weren't the Pact's fault. The Romulan government did not approve of it. Neither did the Tholian Ruling Conclave, nor the Kinshaya Pontifex Maxima, nor the Tzenkethi Autarch, nor the Gorn Imperator. Neither did the Typhon Pact Board of Governors. It was the result of a conspiracy fomented by the Tal Shiar and the Breen government -- and it was one motivated by characters who are clearly aggressive nationalists in the wrong, but who are also honestly terrified of the Federation having the ability to use QS drive to launch a first strike.

 

[Therin of Andor]

What is right and what is wrong is usually pretty obvious.

Is it?

The story they THINK they're telling and the story they're ACTUALLY telling are two different things.

Or: The story they ARE telling versus the story YOU THINK they're telling are two different things.

I don't think they planned it this way per-se, but that's the way it turned out...the only way it COULD turn out realistically, given the nature of the races in the Pact as evidenced by their past acts.

You have very little faith in the authors. Or the UFP's political leaders. Or the moderates in all the TP signatories.

 

[DEWLine]

Indeed. Attempting to repeatedly and retroactively dictate intent unto the authors?

Problematic.

 

[Stoek]

Well now, this has been a lot of fun. I post my little musing and get a debate. A lot of debate. A lot of really interesting debate. Cool. I have a wide variety of thoughts so in no particular order let me start with...

Christopher, thank you for your comments. To be honest it was with you in mind that I shared the quote in the original post because you have been one of the most insightful and consistent spokespeople for the intentions behind the TP storyline. As for your choosing not to reply at length to Ian Keldon I certainly understand. However I will say that I would find any further comments you might choose to make of great interest so if it is any kind of a factor please know that even if the person you might be addressing was not getting your point there are many more of us who generally do and are interested in what you have to say.

Ian, I'm not going to respond to everything you said but there are two things that really stuck with me and to those I will reply...

"What legitimate interest gives the Pact the right to sabotage Federation research? Spy on their engine research programs? What legitimate interest gives them the right to do what they've done recently?"

Strictly speaking the agents who acted covertly were not seeking to sabotage anything. Not as an end in and of itself. Rather the sabotage was to cover the escape of the agent who had obtained the QSD blueprints. From a certain point of view the real sabotage was enacted by the Federation through the actions of Julian Bashir and Sarina Douglas. As for spying on their engine program, well I strongly suspect that most of the major powers in the AQ have probably engaged in various forms of technological espionage. Including the Federation.

But let's step out of the Trek future and talk about the here and now for a moment. Let's talk about the best equivalent to the QSD situation. Namely Nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

The United States and certain of its allies have nuclear bombs. And we in an act of supreme hypocrisy have long declared that it's okay for us to have them, but that it's wrong, immoral, dangerous, etc for ANY ONE ELSE to have them, to try to obtain them, or to even think about trying to obtain them. Towards that end we obsessively police the worlds sub major powers such as Iran, North Korea etc. Engaging in espionage and sabotage of any effort we think might even remotely be in the direction of developing a nuclear weapon.

Now I'm not gonna lie, I'm Nooo fan of nuclear proliferation. But the idea that certain things are acceptable when we do them but unacceptable when others do them is a huge part of the reason why we have had and continue to have major perceptional problems on the world stage. We engage in the use of violence to destroy legitimately elected governments and put in place what basically amounts to puppet governments who are willing to take their marching orders from the same corporations that de-facto run the US. And then we have the nerve, we have the unmitigated gall to be surprised when the people of those nations don't like us? We have the temerity to be surprised when our puppet government is overthrown to discover that the new leaders don't like us, don't trust us, and will go out of their way to spite us? Really?

So back to Trek. The UFP has a Major new technological advantage. A kind of FTL drive that not only is faster by multiple orders of magnitude than traditional Warp Drive, but also because it is not like Warp Drive could allow a ship to bypass existing early warning systems. What right does the UFP have to expect other nation states to not be terrified at this? Seriously. And if one reads the whole of the TP novels (and btw could you do us all a favor and answer the damned question about whether or not you've read Plagues?) it seems pretty clear that most of the TP powers are primarily interested in re-establishing the balance of power that has been upset by the Federation and their creation, use, and normalization (making QSD a significant part of their fleet) of the Quantum Slipstream Drive.

Personally I think some of the problem is that the authors are trying to walk a fine line (perhaps almost too fine) to continue to portray the UFP as primarily "better" than the TP powers. Personally I would love the see an even greater presentation of moral ambiguity in the TP novels. For example when Bashir finds the stolen QSD plans I would have loved it if he had also discovered that the Breen had been pursuing research which on its own merits might result in something similar to QSD. I would have loved to have seen him have to grapple with the decision of destroying that research too, or of simply destroying that which was stolen.

Ultimately what I would really like to see happen with the Typhon Pact is for events to transpire that forces the UFP to really confront the notion that they aren't always necessarily the "good" guys, simply because they want it to be so, and likewise those that oppose them aren't always necessarily the "bad" guys simply because of that opposition.

Now the other thing you said that stuck with me was this...

"A free and soverign Israel in it's own homeland is only a downpayment on the blood debt the entire world owes the Jewish people for thousands of years prejudice and persecution, culminating in the Holocaust."

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. That debt Does NOT extend to their being permitted to commit acts of terrorism and genocide against others without being challenged for it. Every time the US supports Israel when they engage in actions that are wrong on a moral, ethical, and legal basis it damages the legitimacy of their support in the eyes of many at the times when said support may be justifiable. Because of our cowardly refusal to condemn Israel for the atrocities they have committed against the Palestinians we are left looking like lackeys and lapdogs.

Finally I just wanted to give a quick shout to Therin of Andor, Sci, rfmcdpei, and Relayer1 to name just a few for your excellent contributions. Especially about the UN which I have to admit I've never known a whole lot about (probably like most Americans).

Also I'd like to respond to one posters fear that they may have been drifting off topic. I know that authorial intent is not the final arbiter in these threads, but if it makes any difference to anyone as the instigator of this particular thread, since I was the one who was talking about parallels between the current real world situation America is in and the fictional situation the UFP is in, I consider any exploration of those ideas in either their real or fictional contexts to pretty much be "on topic". I'm most delighted when a post is able to involve both aspects but I'm also fine with those posts that focus more singularly on one or the other.

Anyway, thank you to everyone so far for your comments and I hope that there will be more coming. To be honest it's always been this kind of thing that I've loved Trek in all it's media for, using it as a mirror and a lens to help me better get a grasp on things going on in the world around me.

 

[rfmcdpei]

I know it's de rigeur on a Trek board to buy into GR's "we can all get along" absolutism, but reality is not Star Trek, and in terms of Trek fic, the reality is that the Pact is just another Big Bad, as many of us knew it was going to be.

It has the potential to be another Big Bad, yes.

1. Warp drive suddenly doesn't work any more?

Slipstream drive is radically superior to warp drive, sufficiently quick to make expeditions to the other side of the Galaxy doable with travel time on the order of weeks. On the scale of the local powers, fleets equipped with slipstream drives could stage first strikes, attacking and withdrawing at speeds that would be beyond response.

2. The Federation doesn't do those sorts of things absent a provocation...the sort of which every member of the Pact has committed at one time or another, and the Pact just did in spades at Bajor. A QS equipped Starfleet is no threat to any power that respects the rights of sentience and doesn't threaten galactic peace in general or the Federation in particular.

We can take that for granted. Would non-Federation types?

If the Federation had done it's sovereign duty to protect the homes and lives of the border colonists along the Cardassian frontier and not sold them out in the name of a sham "peace treaty" (which the Cardies promptly started subverting), then there would have been no need for the Maquis.

To engage in terrorist attacks and the like, including against Federation targets?

The Maquis might have had some good complaints. Their response to the complaints undermined them completely.

Sci, you couldn't be more wrong on Iraq, but the necessary lengthy explanation of how and why would probably get me in trouble for going too far OT.

I'll just note that criticizing the United Natons for being useless, but then supporting the invasion of Iraq that was a) opposed by the United Nations and b) ended in tragedy and terrible underachievement is contradictory.

 

[Christopher]

Christopher, thank you for your comments. To be honest it was with you in mind that I shared the quote in the original post because you have been one of the most insightful and consistent spokespeople for the intentions behind the TP storyline. As for your choosing not to reply at length to Ian Keldon I certainly understand. However I will say that I would find any further comments you might choose to make of great interest so if it is any kind of a factor please know that even if the person you might be addressing was not getting your point there are many more of us who generally do and are interested in what you have to say.

I'm sorry, but anything I have to say on the subject has already been said repeatedly in previous debates. If you want to use the board's search function for my comments in previous Typhon Pact threads, feel free, but I'm tired of saying the same things over and over. Especially when the books themselves are saying them too. Plagues of Night eloquently demonstrated the fact that the Typhon Pact is not a monolithically evil empire, but a nation comprising multiple competing factions with radically different agendas, some of whom want peace but some of whom are deliberately trying to undermine peace, but all of whom are motivated primarily by what they believe to be the well-being of their people.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The difference is that the Federation deals with it's "rogues", sometimes even when it shouldn't have forced them into going rouge in the first place.

We've had plenty of examples where the UFP has made use of a situation created by one of its own going rogue (Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Archer have all done things Starfleet advised them not to do), and examples where rogue members of an "enemy" have embarrassed their leaders and whose actions were later quashed/punished.

If the Federation had done it's sovereign duty to protect the homes and lives of the border colonists along the Cardassian frontier and not sold them out in the name of a sham "peace treaty" (which the Cardies promptly started subverting), then there would have been no need for the Maquis.

Actually, the original treaty sounded fair, if unusual: both sides giving up a few colony worlds each to make a wider demarcation line or no-go neutral zone to enable peaceful coexistence. Seemingly, that was the only way agreement could be reached at the time. The alternative, to be avoided, was all-out war. It was hoped to avoid bloodshed; the Maquis was formed because some colonists refused to accept the tenuous treaty that had been agreed to by both political entities. Being forced to relocate is hardly an easy alternative, but it was agreed to in good faith, however disproved with 20:20 hindsight.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

There have always been a lot of less powerful nations that resented the dominance of America and the USSR, that didn't like being held hostage to the superpowers' agendas, even when they were allied with one or the other.

Meaning they weren't allowed to rape and pillage each other like they wanted to more often than not.

Funnily enough, there are fewer wars in the world today than during the Cold War, and those wars kill fewer people than the US/Soviet proxy wars did.

There have been a couple notable exceptions. Guess which country is responsible. (HINT: It's not part of the Axis of Evil.)

What legitimate interest gives the Pact the right to sabotage Federation research? Spy on their engine research programs? What legitimate interest gives them the right to do what they've done recently?

Quantum slipstream is a strategically destabilizing technology -- a power with a slipstream fleet could mass forces in the heart of their territory without anyone noticing and then launch an attack on an enemy capital. The fleet would arrive at its target before the sensor operator at a border outpost could say, "Holy crap!"

Of course the Pact wants the technology and will do nefarious things to get it -- no different from when Starfleet sent Kirk to steal a Romulan cloaking device, or when Sisko lured the Romulans into the Dominion War on false pretenses. But of course, those are justified actions because they were done by our team.

Your attitude reminds me of the way the Cuban Missile Crisis is presented in American history texts -- "Oh no, the mean Soviets placed missiles off the American coast! But then the brave President Kennedy stared them in the eye and they backed down," -- with no mention of the fact that the US had comparable missiles in Turkey. Because there's nothing threatening when the US places ballistic missiles within easy striking distance of the Caucuses, but the Soviets doing the same to Florida is unacceptable.

What have the powers of the Pact done to show themselves legitimate and good citizens of the local galactic community? Every last one of them has engaged in unjustified aggression against either the Federation or an ally within recent memory.

I don't recall the Tholians or Gorn doing any such thing in the TNG era, and the Kinshaya aggression was directed against the Klingons, who aren't exactly good guys.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

f the way the Cuban Missile Crisis is presented in American history texts -- "Oh no, the mean Soviets placed missiles off the American coast! But then the brave President Kennedy stared them in the eye and they backed down," -- with no mention of the fact that the US had comparable missiles in Turkey. Because there's nothing threatening when the US places ballistic missiles within easy striking distance of the Caucuses, but the Soviets doing the same to Florida is unacceptable.

I can understand this viewpoint. Given how pathologically afraid the Soviets were of the US - much worse than the reverse - the danger that the Soviets would use those missiles was much greater than the likelihood that the US would use the missiles in Turkey. The Soviets were so paranoid about what they perceived as American intentions to strike first that it shocked everyone.

As for the Kinshaya attack against the Klingons - didn't the rest of the Pact have to majorly cover their asses and engage in much spin doctoring so as to condemn that attack?

 

[Christopher]

Okay, I'll say some of what I was going to say before...

What have the powers of the Pact done to show themselves legitimate and good citizens of the local galactic community? Every last one of them has engaged in unjustified aggression against either the Federation or an ally within recent memory.

I don't recall the Tholians or Gorn doing any such thing in the TNG era, and the Kinshaya aggression was directed against the Klingons, who aren't exactly good guys.

The legitimate Gorn government has never engaged in "unjustified aggression" against the Federation (at least outside of an upcoming video game set in the Abramsverse). Their attack in "Arena" was self-defense against what they perceived as an invasion of their territory, the result of a misunderstanding. After that, there were no subsequent conflicts; just about all the Gorn-related prose and comics tales set post-"Arena" depict the Gorn as either neutral or guardedly friendly toward the Federation. The only Gorn attack on Federation space was in The Gorn Crisis, and it was the act of a renegade faction that overthrew the legitimate Gorn state, a state that was then restored through the actions of Picard and Data and thus had every reason to be friendly toward the UFP.

And where the Klingon-Kinshaya conflict is concerned, I'm pretty sure the Klingons started it. Or if they didn't, they certainly escalated it, by destroying the Kinshaya homeworld. If you ask me, that's a horrific and inexcusable act, a war crime that the Klingons really should be held accountable for.

And when have the Tholians ever engaged in "unjustified aggression" against the UFP? There's never been a declared UFP-Tholian war that we know of. The closest thing would be the events of Vanguard: Storming Heaven, and that's a case where the Tholians were arguably acting in self-defense.

As for the Tzenkethi, we have no information on how their war with the UFP started and whether they were the aggressors. Given what the novels have established about the Tzenkethi, it's quite possible that they also believed they were defending themselves against the Federation's encroachment upon their territory. Many wars are started by such misunderstandings, which is why it's so unwise to assume that other nations are implacable enemies out to destroy you.

Defining all the Pact's members as aggressors or aspiring conquerors is missing the whole point. See what KRAD said in the post I quoted above: he and Marco didn't intend the Pact as a "league of villains," but as a group of weak, mostly minor nations who, in the wake of the Borg invasion, came to recognize the benefits of combining their strength for mutual gain. Those nations were chosen not for their "evilness," but for their obscurity; Keith and Marco wanted to shine the spotlight on overlooked, underdeveloped civilizations (though with the Romulans thrown in as a more familiar anchor for the rest). The Typhon Pact narrative is primarily about exploring how those nations negotiate the challenges and difficulties of building such a union and reconcile their conflicting agendas and views. The tension between those members who want peace with the Federation and those who see it as the enemy is part of that larger narrative, and one that naturally gets featured a lot because the books are mainly told from the Federation's POV.

 

[rfmcdpei]

And where the Klingon-Kinshaya conflict is concerned, I'm pretty sure the Klingons started it. Or if they didn't, they certainly escalated it, by destroying the Kinshaya homeworld. If you ask me, that's a horrific and inexcusable act, a war crime that the Klingons really should be held accountable for.

The only thing we know about the Klingon-Kinshaya conflict is that it's lasted for several centuries and that certainly by this point it's impossible to end it.

Well, Q&A indicated that an escalation of the conflict occurred after Kinshaya took some Klingon soldiers hostage, this conflict possibly being escalating into the conflict that made the Kinshaya homeworld uninhabitable.

And when have the Tholians ever engaged in "unjustified aggression" against the UFP? There's never been a declared UFP-Tholian war that we know of. The closest thing would be the events of Vanguard: Storming Heaven, and that's a case where the Tholians were arguably acting in self-defense.

There's the attack on the starbase where Riker's father was stationed.

 

[Christopher]

And when have the Tholians ever engaged in "unjustified aggression" against the UFP? There's never been a declared UFP-Tholian war that we know of. The closest thing would be the events of Vanguard: Storming Heaven, and that's a case where the Tholians were arguably acting in self-defense.

There's the attack on the starbase where Riker's father was stationed.

But do we know what circumstances led to that attack? Given that it happened in isolation, with no evidence of a larger conflict, it certainly doesn't seem like it was part of a campaign of invasion or conquest.

 

[rfmcdpei]

And when have the Tholians ever engaged in "unjustified aggression" against the UFP? There's never been a declared UFP-Tholian war that we know of. The closest thing would be the events of Vanguard: Storming Heaven, and that's a case where the Tholians were arguably acting in self-defense.

There's the attack on the starbase where Riker's father was stationed.

But do we know what circumstances led to that attack? Given that it happened in isolation, with no evidence of a larger conflict, it certainly doesn't seem like it was part of a campaign of invasion or conquest.

True. The events of Vanguard certainly legitimize Tholian resentment of the Federation, what with the accidental unleashing of cosmic horrors to mind-rape the Tholians' collective consciousness on multiple occasions and all that.

 

[Sci]

At the risk of going completely off-topic... Stoek, I want to thank you for your kind words, and acknowledge that you and I broadly agree on most points. But, I do want to point out one area where I strongly disagree:

"A free and soverign Israel in it's own homeland is only a downpayment on the blood debt the entire world owes the Jewish people for thousands of years prejudice and persecution, culminating in the Holocaust."

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. That debt Does NOT extend to their being permitted to commit acts of terrorism and genocide against others without being challenged for it. Every time the US supports Israel when they engage in actions that are wrong on a moral, ethical, and legal basis it damages the legitimacy of their support in the eyes of many at the times when said support may be justifiable. Because of our cowardly refusal to condemn Israel for the atrocities they have committed against the Palestinians we are left looking like lackeys and lapdogs.

I completely agree that the Israeli government and Israeli Defense Forces have engaged in some horrible atrocities against Palestinians. I also completely agree that every time the Israeli government supports an Israeli settlement on Palestinian land, they're engaging in a crime under international law and are engaging in blatant acts of imperialism.

However, I cannot agree with your characterization of Israeli government and IDF actions as "genocide." The Israeli government is guilty of many atrocities -- just as the PLO and groups like Hamas are guilty of many horrible atrocities against innocent Israelis; neither side is in the right, here -- but it is neither reasonable nor conscionable to accuse the Israeli government of genocide. That's an accusation of a crime against humanity several orders of magnitude more severe than what either side has actually committed, and we shouldn't use such highly-charged rhetoric inaccurately.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders both have a lot of blood on their hands and a lot to answer for. But genocide's not one of them.

 

[E-DUB]

Since this thread has gone from the galacticapolitical to the geopolitical, I'll make this point. Had the United States, in the wake of 9/11, pursued Bin Laden and Al Quida with full-throated vigor, rather than having diverted its attention to Iraq, it would have done so with at best the assistance and at worst the acquiessence of the international community. Bin Laden would have been caught or killed much sooner and thousands of Americans and Iraqis would not have died in that "war of choice".

As for Sadam, I think it a fair guess that his fate would have been sealed in the "Arab Spring" and he would have joined the likes of Mubarak and Khadaffi.

Of course, I don't know that for sure and some might accuse me of employing 20/20 hindsight. But I think it a good bet as there was plenty of domestic opposition to his regime, albeit in the shadows. And as regarding the second part of that statement, if historical events support my point of view, well, you sure can't expect me to ignore them.

 

[Sci]

Of course, I don't know that for sure and some might accuse me of employing 20/20 hindsight. But I think it a good bet as there was plenty of domestic opposition to his regime, albeit in the shadows.

Oh, more than in the shadows. The Kurds had revolted against Saddam Hussein years ago and effectively controlled the northern third of Iraq. The southern third had also rebelled and was beyond Saddam's reach. The U.N. had established No-Fly Zones over both the northern and southern thirds, and regular U.S. and allied patrols kept the remnants of the Iraqi military out of them.

 

[Stoek]

At the risk of going completely off-topic... Stoek, I want to thank you for your kind words, and acknowledge that you and I broadly agree on most points. But, I do want to point out one area where I strongly disagree:

"A free and soverign Israel in it's own homeland is only a downpayment on the blood debt the entire world owes the Jewish people for thousands of years prejudice and persecution, culminating in the Holocaust."

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. That debt Does NOT extend to their being permitted to commit acts of terrorism and genocide against others without being challenged for it. Every time the US supports Israel when they engage in actions that are wrong on a moral, ethical, and legal basis it damages the legitimacy of their support in the eyes of many at the times when said support may be justifiable. Because of our cowardly refusal to condemn Israel for the atrocities they have committed against the Palestinians we are left looking like lackeys and lapdogs.

I completely agree that the Israeli government and Israeli Defense Forces have engaged in some horrible atrocities against Palestinians. I also completely agree that every time the Israeli government supports an Israeli settlement on Palestinian land, they're engaging in a crime under international law and are engaging in blatant acts of imperialism.

However, I cannot agree with your characterization of Israeli government and IDF actions as "genocide." The Israeli government is guilty of many atrocities -- just as the PLO and groups like Hamas are guilty of many horrible atrocities against innocent Israelis; neither side is in the right, here -- but it is neither reasonable nor conscionable to accuse the Israeli government of genocide. That's an accusation of a crime against humanity several orders of magnitude more severe than what either side has actually committed, and we shouldn't use such highly-charged rhetoric inaccurately.

Israeli and Palestinian leaders both have a lot of blood on their hands and a lot to answer for. But genocide's not one of them.

Sci, your points are well made but I honestly can't agree with you. When the group in power (Israel) has effectively herded the group not in power (Palestinians) into increasingly small areas, then set themselves up as arbiters of what materials and people are or are not permitted ingress and egress, and then on top of that when the least little provocation no matter how materially effective or ineffective made by the lesser party is met by overwhelming force by the party in power, with all those factors resulting in both large deaths and an ongoing erosion of quality of life for the lesser party I consider that a form of genocide. Just because the Israeli's haven't started up with the gas chambers and the ovens doesn't make what they have done so far any less reprehensible than what the Nazi's did to Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc, or what the United States did to the Native Americans.

 

[Shon T'Hara]

f the way the Cuban Missile Crisis is presented in American history texts -- "Oh no, the mean Soviets placed missiles off the American coast! But then the brave President Kennedy stared them in the eye and they backed down," -- with no mention of the fact that the US had comparable missiles in Turkey. Because there's nothing threatening when the US places ballistic missiles within easy striking distance of the Caucuses, but the Soviets doing the same to Florida is unacceptable.

I can understand this viewpoint. Given how pathologically afraid the Soviets were of the US - much worse than the reverse - the danger that the Soviets would use those missiles was much greater than the likelihood that the US would use the missiles in Turkey. The Soviets were so paranoid about what they perceived as American intentions to strike first that it shocked everyone.

But that's a Western POV. To the Soviets, the US was a country that had invaded Russia during the revolution, routinely violated their airspace, and supported any right-wing dictator who was sufficiently anti-communist. Being afraid the US would launch a first strike was entirely justified from their perspective, and forcing the point by placing their own missiles in Cuba was a reasonable response (note that Kennedy agreed to remove the IRBMs from Turkey in exchange for Khrushchev doing the same in Cuba).

We see the same attitude towards the Typhon Pact -- people take for granted the US/Federation's good intentions without trying to see it from an outside perspective.