The thing about Roddenberry's 'No conflict' edict is that it barred the writers from laziness. Interpersonal conflict can be great, but only if it's original, character driven interpersonal conflict. The 'Roddenberry box' took away a crutch and forced the writers to be creative.
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Well the dilemma is at what cost will the Federation be saved. The cost is deceiving an empire into war.
I loved it, and to me, there is no "dilemma" there. If Sisko doesn't act, the UFP is in danger of losing the war.
Well the dilemma is at what cost will the Federation be saved. The cost is deceiving an empire into war.
um, and...?
had they not been brought in, the war would have been lost, the UFP would have been conquered, and eventually the Romulan Empire as well.
Sisko was saving both, while at the cost of some deception and a few lives.
As I wrote, Garak's quote sums it up
Whenever I think of good Trek vs. bad Trek, I always compare this episode to Enterprise's "Dear, Doctor". Where as Sisko ends this story with self-guilt and no respect for what he's done, Archer is openly confident in his decision to let a whole species die out and earns respect from his crew.
Well the dilemma is at what cost will the Federation be saved. The cost is deceiving an empire into war.
um, and...?
And saving the Federation doesn't warrant that.
Which Sisko could not prove totally.had they not been brought in, the war would have been lost, the UFP would have been conquered, and eventually the Romulan Empire as well.
When?Sisko was saving both, while at the cost of some deception and a few lives.
As I wrote, Garak's quote sums it up
The Garak quote is something like "you probably saved the Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one criminal, one senator, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I'd call that a bargain."
um, and...?
And saving the Federation doesn't warrant that.
Which Sisko could not prove totally.
When?Sisko was saving both, while at the cost of some deception and a few lives.
As I wrote, Garak's quote sums it up
saving the Federation doesn't warrant that?Your "principles" won't mean a thing when the peoples of the Federation are killed or enslaved. A government's first responsibility is self-defense. They owed the Romulans nothing. The Romulans would have been fine with watching the UFP and the Klingons be destroyed while fighting for the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant.
The Garak quote is something like "you probably saved the Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one criminal, one senator, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I'd call that a bargain."
lol.. Sisko tricked an entire Empire into war. I don't see how that deceit was justified, based upon the Romulans who may have died in the war. As for the Romulans, they didn't need to give a shit, the Federation was their long-term enemy, whilst they were blood enemies of the Klingons. Who says a government's first responsibility is self-defence?
In the Pale Moonlight said:SISKO: The Founders see it as their sacred duty to bring order to the galaxy. Their order. Do you think they'll sit idly by while you keep your chaotic empire right next to their perfect order? No. If you watch us go under, then what you're really doing is signing your own death warrant.
In the Pale Moonlight said:SISKO: I'd pick the side most likely to leave us in peace when the dust settles. Maybe you're right. Maybe the Dominion will win in the end. Then the Founders will control what we now call Cardassia, the Klingon Empire and the Federation. So, instead of facing three separate opponents with three separate agendas, you'll find yourselves facing the same opponent on every side. There's a word for that. Surrounded.
I'd agree with that, but just because Sisko said so isn't exactly hard evidence.
I'd agree with that, but just because Sisko said so isn't exactly hard evidence.
It's really just simple logic. The Founders, who fear solids, weren't going to take over the Federation, the Cardassians and the Klingons and yet allow the Romulan Empire to continue to operate as it always has.
After conquering the rest, they would have been controlling Romulus inside of six weeks.
And saving the Federation doesn't warrant that.
Which Sisko could not prove totally.
When?
saving the Federation doesn't warrant that?Your "principles" won't mean a thing when the peoples of the Federation are killed or enslaved. A government's first responsibility is self-defense. They owed the Romulans nothing. The Romulans would have been fine with watching the UFP and the Klingons be destroyed while fighting for the freedom of the Alpha Quadrant.
The Garak quote is something like "you probably saved the Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one criminal, one senator, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I'd call that a bargain."
lol.. Sisko tricked an entire Empire into war. I don't see how that deceit was justified, based upon the Romulans who may have died in the war. As for the Romulans, they didn't need to give a shit, the Federation was their long-term enemy, whilst they were blood enemies of the Klingons. Who says a government's first responsibility is self-defence?
I'd agree with that, but just because Sisko said so isn't exactly hard evidence.
It's really just simple logic. The Founders, who fear solids, weren't going to take over the Federation, the Cardassians and the Klingons and yet allow the Romulan Empire to continue to operate as it always has.
After conquering the rest, they would have been controlling Romulus inside of six weeks.
Dax(as Romulan advocate): That's speculation.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.