Is the lack of 'arc' elements in the TNG films a problem?

[sonak]

So what's to stop the Federation from taking over any planet it feels like taking?

If you're the Federation, do you believe the S'ona are going to leave the Ba'ku alone if you say no? Do you believe that no other race in the Alpha Quadrant is going to be interested in the life extending properties of meta-phasics? Would you be willing to spend Federation lives to protect those six-hundred people, while in the middle of another far larger, conflict?

The Federation chose the best option available to protect those six-hundred people.

That's not answering my question, so I'll ask you again--what's to stop the Federation from invading any planet it wants? That was essentially the question Picard asked Dougherty.

The Federation can't be everywhere and can't protect every world from thugs, but this was a case in which the Federation chose to lie down with thugs and aid in the theft of a planet that wasn't theirs.

that's nothing more than a slippery slope argument. As Picard should have known if he were not written to be an adolescent in this movie.

 

[C.E. Evans]

That's not answering my question, so I'll ask you again--what's to stop the Federation from invading any planet it wants? That was essentially the question Picard asked Dougherty.

The Federation can't be everywhere and can't protect every world from thugs, but this was a case in which the Federation chose to lie down with thugs and aid in the theft of a planet that wasn't theirs.

Every situation is unique and you know it. Part of it is ethics, part is payoff and part is simply is a given move practical. They all three weigh heavily in any decision that would be made.

But let's not pretend the Federation hasn't used planets with living, sentient lifeforms on them before as either bargaining chips (Journey's End) or to better the lives of Federation citizens at large (Devil in the Dark, Friday's Child).

Remember how pissed Picard was when a junior officer stuck his nose into a mission that he had real grasp of? He did the same thing in Insurrection.

In other words, there's nothing preventing the Federation from taking over any world it feels necessary.

"[The] Federation offers one other thing, Akaar. Our laws. And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."
--Captain J.T. Kirk to Teer Akaar,
"Friday's Child"

So much for that idea, eh?

 

[C.E. Evans]

When the S'ona were expelled, were they compensated for their lost property? If not, then a case could be made that the planet belongs just as much to the S'ona as the Ba'ku.

So that's how theft is legalized?

Both of them had a legal claim to the planet.

So did the Ba'ku, but they were willing to ignore that.

um, no, that's not what I'm saying. Both the UFP and the Son'a have a right to the planet-the UFP because of where the planet is, the Son'a because that's where they were living for so long and that they were part of the group that landed there.

So the Federation can willingly invade or aid in the invasion of any world that happens to be in neutral territory?

that's nothing more than a slippery slope argument.

Actually, it's a valid one.

 

[BillJ]

In other words, there's nothing preventing the Federation from taking over any world it feels necessary.

"[The] Federation offers one other thing, Akaar. Our laws. And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."
--Captain J.T. Kirk to Teer Akaar,
"Friday's Child"

So much for that idea, eh?

All the while, violating the Federation's highest law in dealing with the Capellans in the first place... Life simply isn't as black and white as you and Star Trek: Insurrection want it to be.

So the treaty in Journey's End was wrong?

And try to actually answer one of my questions since I've done you the same courtesy...

 

[C.E. Evans]

In other words, there's nothing preventing the Federation from taking over any world it feels necessary.

"[The] Federation offers one other thing, Akaar. Our laws. And the highest of all our laws states that your world is yours and will always remain yours."
--Captain J.T. Kirk to Teer Akaar,
"Friday's Child"

So much for that idea, eh?

All the while, violating the Federation's highest law in dealing with the Capellans in the first place...

How so? The Capellans were aware of alien life-forms out there (and were even participating in the signging of treaties with them). There's no evidence of a Prime Directive violation.

Life simply isn't as black and white as you and Star Trek: Insurrection want it to be.

Um, that's actually what I've been saying. The Federation isn't always on the side of right in every occasion. Sometimes it makes mistakes.

So the treaty in Journey's End was wrong?

It conceded worlds colonized by the Federation to the Cardassians. The ones who felt wronged were the Federation colonists who didn't want to give up their homes. It's not about the treaty, but rather about the people who chose to defy the treaty.

And try to actually answer one of my questions since I've done you the same courtesy...

I'm actually still waiting for you to answer any of mine. So far, you been evading them by bringing up other subjects.

 

[BillJ]

How so? The Capellans were aware of alien life-forms out there (and were even participating in the signging of treaties with them). There's no evidence of a Prime Directive violation.

They're living in tents and haven't developed past the stage of hand thrown weapons yet Kirk and his party hand over phasers and communicators.

That, to me, would seem to be a pretty serious breach.

 

[C.E. Evans]

How so? The Capellans were aware of alien life-forms out there (and were even participating in the signging of treaties with them). There's no evidence of a Prime Directive violation.

They're living in tents and haven't developed past the stage of hand thrown weapons yet Kirk and his party hand over phasers and communicators.

That, to me, would seem to be a pretty serious breach.

Actually, it only means that they prefer a different way of life than Kirk and the gang, one rooted in their culture's traditions and customs. But the fact that they are aware of aliens and are even negotiating with them for membership in their interstellar governments indicates it's not a Prime Direction violation.

 

[sonak]

Another thread drawn into the web of suck that is INS.

 

[MacLeod]

No, what I find wrong is the Federation agreeing to relocate people from a planet that didn't belong to the Federation or their Son'a partners.

When the S'ona were expelled, were they compensated for their lost property? If not, then a case could be made that the planet belongs just as much to the S'ona as the Ba'ku.

Star Trek: Insurrection, is by far, my least favorite Trek outing. Yet I think I've written far more about it than all other Trek combined.

Well with the regards to eminant domain :-

1.>As far as the Federation was initially aware is wasa pre-warp culture. So fell under the PD

2.>If if the planet was within the Federation sphere of influence, it's inhabitants weren't Federation Citzens. As such the planet was their's and not the Federations to do with as it pleased.

3.>Any differences of opinion between the Ba'ku and the S'ona were strictly an internal affair. Once again falling under the PD. (though the Federation didn't know they were the same race).

So if the law on that planet said there was no compensation for banishment, then the S'ona can not claim it.

 

[sonak]

No, what I find wrong is the Federation agreeing to relocate people from a planet that didn't belong to the Federation or their Son'a partners.

When the S'ona were expelled, were they compensated for their lost property? If not, then a case could be made that the planet belongs just as much to the S'ona as the Ba'ku.

Star Trek: Insurrection, is by far, my least favorite Trek outing. Yet I think I've written far more about it than all other Trek combined.

Well with the regards to eminant domain :-

1.>As far as the Federation was initially aware is wasa pre-warp culture. So fell under the PD

2.>If if the planet was within the Federation sphere of influence, it's inhabitants weren't Federation Citzens. As such the planet was their's and not the Federations to do with as it pleased.

3.>Any differences of opinion between the Ba'ku and the S'ona were strictly an internal affair. Once again falling under the PD. (though the Federation didn't know they were the same race).

So if the law on that planet said there was no compensation for banishment, then the S'ona can not claim it.

I disagree, but fine. Even if you're right, then Picard was violating the PD in a HUGE way by defending the Baku against the Son'a in an internal conflict. He was doing this while berating Dougherty for "bringing the Federation into a blood feud" like the colossal hypocrite that he is in this movie.


Once he learned the truth about the "blood feud," Picard should have gotten out of there as fast as he could. But then of course this was a sloppy half-assed writing job, so he doesn't do that.

 

[MacLeod]

It's been a few years since I saw the movie so I might be mistaken, but once Picard discovred it was an internal affair wasn't it Dougherty he refused to obey the PD. True Picard was technically guilty as well, but in the case of Picard by that point didn't he know that the Ba'ku weren't a pre-warp culture. And he was trying to ensure that their right to live on that planet was upheld. It doesn't matter that they didn't evovle there, they had lived on it for decades.

Perhaps the difference between Picard an Dougherty, is that while Picard might be voiliting the letter of the PD he was at least trying to obey the spirit of it. Whilst Dougherty wasn't.

 

[sonak]

It's been a few years since I saw the movie so I might be mistaken, but once Picard discovred it was an internal affair wasn't it Dougherty he refused to obey the PD. True Picard was technically guilty as well, but in the case of Picard by that point didn't he know that the Ba'ku weren't a pre-warp culture. And he was trying to ensure that their right to live on that planet was upheld. It doesn't matter that they didn't evovle there, they had lived on it for decades.

Perhaps the difference between Picard an Dougherty, is that while Picard might be voiliting the letter of the PD he was at least trying to obey the spirit of it. Whilst Dougherty wasn't.

why is Picard "ensuring their right to live on that planet?"

This was a Son'a-Baku internal feud. The Son'a had just as much of a claim on the planet. Picard is taking sides in what is basically a civil war.

 

[MacLeod]

But Dougherty wanted to relocate them against their will, and Picard wanted to take the new information about it being an internal affair to the Federation council. He was overruled by his superior.

 

[BillJ]

But Dougherty wanted to relocate them against their will, and Picard wanted to take the new information about it being an internal affair to the Federation council. He was overruled by his superior.

But what do you think happens when it is ruled an internal affair?

 

[MacLeod]

Shouldn't the Federation have just left them to sort it out amongest themselves, taking all Federation equipment with them.

 

[sonak]

Shouldn't the Federation have jut st left them to sort it out amongest themselves, taking all Federation equipment with them.

and the Son'a, with their superior technology and numbers remove the Baku anyway. Then they sell the magic particles to the Federation.

Basically, it's the same result either way. What BillJ and I are saying is that there's no way the Baku DON'T get removed unless the Federation spends its own resources and time defending this small village against others.


the plot is just not well thought out.

 

[C.E. Evans]

This was a Son'a-Baku internal feud. The Son'a had just as much of a claim on the planet.

That's like saying the Romulans have just as much a claim to Vulcan as the Vulcans do.

 

[sonak]

This was a Son'a-Baku internal feud. The Son'a had just as much of a claim on the planet.

That's like saying the Romulans have just as much a claim to Vulcan as the Vulcans do.

did you watch the movie? The Son'a were involuntarily EXPELLED from the planet, they didn't leave voluntarily. It's a huge planet, but instead of sending them somewhere else on it, they kicked them off of it.


So... why can't the Son'a come back and do the same thing to the Baku? Why is Picard defending those who exiled the Son'a to die?

 

[C.E. Evans]

This was a Son'a-Baku internal feud. The Son'a had just as much of a claim on the planet.

That's like saying the Romulans have just as much a claim to Vulcan as the Vulcans do.

did you watch the movie? The Son'a were involuntarily EXPELLED from the planet, they didn't leave voluntarily. It's a huge planet, but instead of sending them somewhere else on it, they kicked them off of it.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If the planet's leaders told them to go, then they had to go.

It's an issue of planetary sovereignty, and if the planetary government doesn't want these people on their planet, then that's it. Case closed. Any attempt for those exiles to come back and take over the planet then becomes an invasion if the planetary government doesn't agree to it.

 

[sonak]

That's like saying the Romulans have just as much a claim to Vulcan as the Vulcans do.

did you watch the movie? The Son'a were involuntarily EXPELLED from the planet, they didn't leave voluntarily. It's a huge planet, but instead of sending them somewhere else on it, they kicked them off of it.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. If the planet's leaders told them to go, then they had to go.

It's an issue of planetary sovereignty, and if the planetary government doesn't want these people on their planet, then that's it. Case closed. Any attempt for those exiles to come back and take over the planet then becomes an invasion if the planetary government doesn't agree to it.

The Baku have to agree to removal but the Son'a don't.
so your position is arbitrary-got it.