Section 31’s plan (S7 spoilers)

[ProtoAvatar]

But, Rush Limborg, feel free to prove me wrong - come up with a situation - if you can - in which the extermination of all sentient life on a planet - genocide - is necessary for self-defense.
One condition - this situation should be plausible for this universe, not some uncoherent fantasy worldbuilding.

"The Man Trap", for one. "A Taste of Armageddon", for another.

Also...I refer you to the situations we all discussed in the first two pages of this thread.

Rush Limborg, exactly why is genocide necessary in the instances you quoted? Fell free to elaborate.

First, the virus was obviously designed and used (using Odo to infect the great link) to exterminate ALL the founders.

To play devil's advocate (read: I'm not neccessarily contesting this point, but), how, exactly, is this obvious?

S31 infected Odo in order for Odo to infect the great link, directly or by intermediaries. They writers even made one of the main characters spell it out for the audience.

What purpose did you think infecting Odo with the virus had?
Infecting the founder spies? How exactly do you picture that working?

Are you a prophet by any chance? You can't make such statements and expect them to be taken seriously.

Fascinating...you would rebuke me for making such a prediction, when you yourself would predict that the Founders would, inevitably, discover who was responsible for the virus, and expect that prediction to be taken as a given....

It doesn't take a prophet to realise that the founders/dominion would easily realise the provenience of the virus by forensic methods alone - they're far from being idiots.

Again, you are making an assumption--an assumption that a civil war was neccessarily what they intended to occur.

Rush Limborg, there are only two alternatives - either civil war within the dominion, or the dominion coming after the federation with everything it has.
Either S31 prayed for a civil war, or they were suicidal.

Rush Limborg, genocide is a most ineffective and immoral way to end a conflict - and a most bloody one.

For example - in DS9, S31's plan came with a prayer - "Please, God, make the founder genocide cause a civil war within the dominion!"

More often than not, genocide will NOT end a conflict, but EXACERBATE it.
The exceptions:
- you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
- highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.

So you admit that the virus is efficient--because, as Sci pointed out, that is what it does to the Founders.

The virus is effective in killing the founders. It is NOT effective in ending the conflict.

Also, do not assume that because a military force is strong in one are, it is strong in all areas.

Rush Limborg, if your military can exterminate your enemy, than it IS stronger than your enemy - and you can subdue your enemy without exterminating him. That's it. "Areas" this and that - that's just meaningless rethoric.

As you have pointed out, the virus could well have been what caused the Founders to, out of stress, irrationally treat the Cardassians like dirt.

So? This is a highly improbale event.
You have a better chance of winning the lottery than of your genocide even partially working as you want him to - and you think genocide is an usable strategy?

"For a Starfleet Officer, in time of war, the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The enemies that we deal with, they don't care about your rules. All they care about is a result. Our job is to stop them from accomplishing their objectives. We simply adapted.

"In answer to your question, is Section 31 above the law? No, sir. We are more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. We will let them decide what price we should pay. But please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect this bureau to regret the decisions that it has made.

"Because, sir, the truth is...we don't."

And about S31's attempted genocide being illogical and making "no sense" - I take it you wish to retreat your arrogant Jack Bauer-esque speech that justifies commiting genocide by some unrepentant sociopath who thinks he's the peak of creation.

And, if you actually read the speech, you will note that Jack himself made clear that he would be perfectly willing to be tried and judged by the people he was entrusted to protect--just so long as they do not expect him to regret what he did.

I'm not talking about 24, I'm talking about your speech as you wrote it in your post.
My description of the speech is completely accurate. The name-calling - well-deserved.

And about 24 - that's revenge porn.
Do not make the mistake of believing that anything from that show actually applies in the real world, that doesn't have scenarists that make sure everything goes according to the ideas they support.
For example - did Bauer stayed in prison after his speech? No? That's because the show needed its main character - that's the kind of artificiality I'm talking about.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Rush Limborg, exactly why is genocide necessary in the instances you quoted? Fell free to elaborate.

Of course!

In the case of "Man Trap", it was either "us or it/them". Trying to capture the creature would only run the risk of it escaping as security tried to escort it--to take even more victims. Note its strength as it knocked Spock across Kirk's quarters.

For "Taste of Armageddon", recall that Kirk was completely willing, again, to call General Order 24.

Now...suppose the planet leaders decide to call Kirk's bluff. What then? In that case, Kirk made a very stupid bluff, because he effectively went all in--and more, besides.

S31 infected Odo in order for Odo to infect the great link, directly or by intermediaries. They writers even made one of the main characters spell it out for the audience.

What purpose did you think infecting Odo with the virus had?
Infecting the founder spies? How exactly do you picture that working?

Again, as Odo was, as per Hollow Men. infected after the war began, this was a weapon of war, in his case.

And considering the last episode of DS9's third season--and how he "snagged" the infiltrator in "Homefront"--I think those instances illustrate how I picture it working.

It doesn't take a prophet to realise that the founders/dominion would easily realise the provenience of the virus by forensic methods alone - they're far from being idiots.

And yet they did not realize it.

Rush Limborg, there are only two alternatives - either civil war within the dominion, or the dominion coming after the federation with everything it has.
Either S31 prayed for a civil war, or they were suicidal.

Or...what happened.

I would think there was a reason Section 31 had a cure. Consider how Weyoun and Co. were completely incapable of finding a cure themselves.

I think we can safely assume, as has been theorized earlier, that 31 was intending, should civil war not break out, that the cure serve as an effective bargaining chip.

The virus is effective in killing the founders. It is NOT effective in ending the conflict.

It is, however, effective in killing off the leaders--and instigators--of the conflict. Cut off the head, and what happens to the serpent?

Rush Limborg, if your military can exterminate your enemy, than it IS stronger than your enemy - and you can subdue your enemy without exterminating him. That's it. "Areas" this and that - that's just meaningless rethoric.

Oh, is it really?

I refer you to the Borg. They were indeed superior to the Federation in weapons and defence tech--and yet, through ingenuity in other areas, Starfleet proves able to keep putting a stop to them.

So? This is a highly improbale event.
You have a better chance of winning the lottery than of your genocide even partially working as you want him to - and you think genocide is an usable strategy?

I assume that is a rehitorical question, because you basically state that the situation is improbable, and then ask me if I think it is probable!

I'm not talking about 24, I'm talking about your speech as you wrote it in your post.
My description of the speech is completely accurate. The name-calling - well-deserved.

Indeed.

And about 24 - that's revenge porn.
Do not make the mistake of believing that anything from that show actually applies in the real world, that doesn't have scenarists that make sure everything goes according to the ideas they support.

By that argument, any allegory-based TV show (such as...Star Trek, for example), should be dismissed, because the witers will write it the way they want.

Frankly, just because you don't agree with the message doesn't mean that the message isn't valid.

For example - did Bauer stayed in prison after his speech? No? That's because the show needed its main character - that's the kind of artificiality I'm talking about.

Again, that does not hurt the message in any way--any more than any "plot contrivance" in Trek hurt its message.

But as you've said...this debate is not about 24.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You know all this genocide is necessary talk sounds like something Darth Vader and the Galactic Empire would be in to

in fact

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXCfEhW0R3k&feature=related[/yt]

And yes I know this is an altered version.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Rush Limborg

"Man Trap" - it seems the "enemy" in this episode was a single "creature", an "enemy soldier". The word "genocide" hardly applies.

"Taste of Armageddon" - So, Kirk threatened with genocide a planet which obviously had no effective means of defending itself against even a federation starship. This planet obviously posed no threat to the federation.
Kirk had no reason or excuse for comittion genocide in this situation.

About S31's genocide attempt:

Odo infected the great link vith the virus in the episode DS9:"Broken Link", as Bashir, after his research on the virus, establishes in one of the latter season 7 episodes. This means that, canonically, S31 infected the founders long before the war began.

About Odo infecting the founder spies - how do you picture Odo infecting hundreds of founder spies that operate semi-independently? Without infecting the great link, with which the spies communed after their tour of duty?

And the dominion did knew that the virus originated within the federation by war's end. The female founder was not at all surprised that Odo had the cure. In the DS9 relaunch books - the closest thing you'll get to canon regarding post-series events - it is clearly established that the great link knew about the virus' origin (see DS9:Worlds of DS9 - Olympus descending). Even the klingons knew.
Which, of course, makes sense - forensic work can most definitely trace back a virus to its point of origin - even today.


S31 most definitely DID NOT predicted and wanted to achieve the outcome that took place.
Why? Because this outcome implied a number of highly improbable events - as in, it was impredictable FOR ANYONE.

Also, S31 did not infect the founders in order to give them the cure later on.
Why? Because, after receiving the cure, the founders would come after those that tried to kill them - the federation - with everything the dominion got. And they wouldn't stop until either the federation was destroyed, or the dominion.

S31 wanted to kill the founders, HOPING that the dominion would fall into civil war - an improbable event on its own.
Why? Because the dominion would most definitely follow the last orders given by the founders before their death - which would probably be destroy the federation, their killers.

Cut off the head, and what happens to the serpent?

Not always death, Rush Limborg - in this case, the comparison fails.

As I said:
"Rush Limborg, genocide is a most ineffective and immoral way to end a conflict - and a most bloody one.

For example - in DS9, S31's plan came with a prayer - "Please, God, make the founder genocide cause a civil war within the dominion!"

More often than not, genocide will NOT end a conflict, but EXACERBATE it.
The exceptions:
- you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
- highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky."

Rush Limborg, if your military can exterminate your enemy, than it IS stronger than your enemy - and you can subdue your enemy without exterminating him. That's it. "Areas" this and that - that's just meaningless rethoric.

Oh, is it really?

I refer you to the Borg. They were indeed superior to the Federation in weapons and defence tech--and yet, through ingenuity in other areas, Starfleet proves able to keep putting a stop to them.

Yes. Really.

If the borg can exterminate the federation, they don't need to in order to assure their safety - the federation is a minor threat.
If the borg can't exterminate the federation, then their military (themselves) IS NOT stronger than the enemy (the federation).

About 24:
None of the ideas supported by the show are proven by the narrative of the show (a situation identical to star trek, etc).
Why? Because all evidence presented is biased.

For example - you mentioned in this thread the speech Bauer gave for torturing/killing a murderer of 45 people, among them 10 being children.
Well, Bauer tortured and killed people who deserved it a LOT LESS; many, not at all.
Why wasn't Bauer questioned for their immoral torture and murder? Because then Bauer couldn't take such a self-righteous stance; Because then, it would be obvious that he's wrong. And we couldn't have that, now, could we?

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Frankly, ProtoAvatar, you are assuming that Section 31 did not prepare for alternative scenarios.

If they did not--than you are right in calling their plan stupid and impractical.

But how do you know that they did not? I have a hard time believing that--but that's just me. I assume, simply, that an orginization as powerful and resourceful as that would have prepared for different scenarios.

It would make sense, then, that Section 31 would take care to manipulate events so that the situation would turn in their favor--as, indeed, Sloan did in "Inter Arna..."



Now...a word about the Borg.

I would have thought it painfully clear that the Borg's motive for attacking the Federation was, "To add [its] biologcal and technological distinctiveness to our own".

It wasn't about defense. It was about conquest. Thus, your argument is invalid.

Again, the Borg--and the Dominion--were superior, technologically, in some ways. The Allies were superior in other ways. The key, then, to victory would be to take the areas in which you are superior, and use this to your advantage.

To assume, as you seem to, that you can't distinguish between "areas" is most illogical indeed.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

^Frankly, ProtoAvatar, you are assuming that Section 31 did not prepare for alternative scenarios.

If they did not--than you are right in calling their plan stupid and impractical.

But how do you know that they did not? I have a hard time believing that--but that's just me. I assume, simply, that an orginization as powerful and resourceful as that would have prepared for different scenarios.

It would make sense, then, that Section 31 would take care to manipulate events so that the situation would turn in their favor--as, indeed, Sloan did in "Inter Arna..."

Let's assume S31 prepared for the likely scenario of their genocide - total war with the dominion.

How can they realistically prepare? By hiding in bunkers? Good job, S31 - sarcasm.

You assume that S31 can influence dominion politics and decisions to the point that S31 can order the dominion to disobey the last orders of the founders and start a civil war.
In DS9:"Inter arma..." S31 didn't even come close to this level of influence within the romulan empire, which was known and available for infiltration for centuries.
And yet, you think S31 infiltrated the newly discovered dominion to this extent - this is even contradicted by cannon, by the fact that S31 needed Odo to infect the founders, rather than doing it directly (an easy task for someone so influential within the dominion), or by the fact that the dominion started its war with the alpha quadrant.

Let's assume that S31 did control the dominion to this extent. This means that the dominion is effectively S31/federation conquered territory. Destroying the dominion in these circumstances is idiotic - it's much like killing a loyal pet of yours.

Now...a word about the Borg.

I would have thought it painfully clear that the Borg's motive for attacking the Federation was, "To add [its] biologcal and technological distinctiveness to our own".

It wasn't about defense. It was about conquest. Thus, your argument is invalid.

Again, the Borg--and the Dominion--were superior, technologically, in some ways. The Allies were superior in other ways. The key, then, to victory would be to take the areas in which you are superior, and use this to your advantage.

To assume, as you seem to, that you can't distinguish between "areas" is most illogical indeed.

Rush Limborg, again:

Rush Limborg, genocide is a most ineffective and immoral way to end a conflict - and a most bloody one.

For example - in DS9, S31's plan came with a prayer - "Please, God, make the founder genocide cause a civil war within the dominion!"

More often than not, genocide will NOT end a conflict, but EXACERBATE it.
The exceptions:
- you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
- highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.

If "you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike)", than you are clearly stronger than your enemy - as in the outcome of a war with your opponent is NOT uncertain; it's obvious that you can crush this enemy at will.

The dominion is not clearly stronger than the federation - there is uncertainty. The same thing can be said about the federation vs the dominion.
This means that a genocide by the federation against the dominion or viceversa will NOT end a war. On the contrary, the genocide will exacerbate the war - unless the side that perpetrated genocide is ridiculously lucky (much like the federation was in DS9).

If the federation was clearly stronger than the dominion or viceversa, than genocide would be gratuitous, unnecessary for self-defense or conquest - these could be done the old fashion way, with barely any risk involved.



The borg is clearly stronger than the federation - starfleet barely stooped a cube at a time, and the borg has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of cubes!
Starfleet's victories are barely skirmishes by the borg's standard. DS9 Relaunch:"Abyss" clearly established that even if the federation allied with the klingons and the romulans and the breen and the dominion, this alliance would still probably loose to the borg - imagine the borg sending 100000 cubes against the alpha quadrant.

What does that mean - it means that the borg doesn't need to commit genocide for self-defense or conquest.
The borg commits genocide because it's the easiest way to conquer other species (to add the biological and...). And that does exacerbate the conflict with who knows how many species. The borg doesn't care about that because he's so powerfull, he can take that in stride.

Now, let's assume the borg is not clearly stronger than the federation and it kills everyone on Earth/Vulcan/Andor. If the borg is ridiculously lucky, the federation will disintegrate. But, much more likely, the federation will use its creativity to strike at the borg much more viciously and continuously than the feds would do otherwise.

PS - I want to thank you for your civility. This discussion would have devolved into a fight long ago if I had it with some of the other posters.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Let's assume S31 prepared for the likely scenario of their genocide - total war with the dominion.

How can they realistically prepare? By hiding in bunkers? Good job, S31 - sarcasm.

Frankly, ProtoAvatar, I hardly think the Dominion War, as it was, was not a "total war".

31 was completely aware of the possibility of escalation--and indeed, they doubtlessly knew that escalation is a result of many different scenarios. They knew that, should the Dominion build up their war efforts--for whatever reason--the Allies would build up in turn.

Should total war continue to ensue, the scenario would be the same except--the Founders would be gone, which means that the Dominion would be unable to retain the intelligence-related advantage they'd possessed with them.

And to the question of whether the Founders still had infiltrators within the Allies' ranks--even if you brush aside "Change of Heart", nonetheless--it would only be logical for the Dominion to continue these efforts, as during war, it is a logical tactic to undermine the enemy from within--even more so, than in times of "peace" (such as in "Homefront").

Even if the virus would continue--and, indeed, escalate--the war, still, the removal of what is, frankly, the Dominion's most powerful and effective weapon was doubtlessly, to Section 31, worth the risk.

You assume that S31 can influence dominion politics and decisions to the point that S31 can order the dominion to disobey the last orders of the founders and start a civil war.
In DS9:"Inter arma..." S31 didn't even come close to this level of influence within the romulan empire, which was known and available for infiltration for centuries.
And yet, you think S31 infiltrated the newly discovered dominion to this extent - this is even contradicted by cannon, by the fact that S31 needed Odo to infect the founders, rather than doing it directly (an easy task for someone so influential within the dominion), or by the fact that the dominion started its war with the alpha quadrant.

Let's assume that S31 did control the dominion to this extent. This means that the dominion is effectively S31/federation conquered territory. Destroying the dominion in these circumstances is idiotic - it's much like killing a loyal pet of yours.

That argument is logical...but irrelevant, as that was not the scenario I intended to illustrate.

Rush Limborg, again:

Rush Limborg, genocide is a most ineffective and immoral way to end a conflict - and a most bloody one.

For example - in DS9, S31's plan came with a prayer - "Please, God, make the founder genocide cause a civil war within the dominion!"

More often than not, genocide will NOT end a conflict, but EXACERBATE it.
The exceptions:
- you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
- highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.

If "you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike)", than you are clearly stronger than your enemy - as in the outcome of a war with your opponent is NOT uncertain; it's obvious that you can crush this enemy at will.

The dominion is not clearly stronger than the federation - there is uncertainty. The same thing can be said about the federation vs the dominion.
This means that a genocide by the federation against the dominion or viceversa will NOT end a war. On the contrary, the genocide will exacerbate the war - unless the side that perpetrated genocide is ridiculously lucky (much like the federation was in DS9).

If the federation was clearly stronger than the dominion or viceversa, than genocide would be gratuitous, unnecessary for self-defense or conquest - these could be done the old fashion way, with barely any risk involved.

The fact, that, overall, who is stronger is uncertain illustrates my point: that the Dominion was tactically superior in some ways, the Federation in others.

Now, you noted how it was "luck" that caused the Allies to be victorious. Consider:

--Do you really think the Founders would have surrendered if not for the virus? It was painfully clear, from the beginning, that the Founders had a paranoid hatred of the solid races--believing that every single solid power not under their control was a threat to their existence. No...they would have fought to the bitter end, regardless of whether the solids fought "morally" or not.

--The Female Changeling surrendered because, quite simply, Odo showed her compassion and mercy--traits which he did not learn from the Founders, but from his friends.

--Due to her distrust of solids, logic suggests that she would not have accepted such a gift from the solids. It had to have been Odo who offered the cure.

My theory, as to how Section 31 "manipulated" events, was that, like in "Inter Arna...", they relied on Odo's morality to convince the Founders to surrender.

The borg is clearly stronger than the federation - starfleet barely stooped a cube at a time, and the borg has HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of cubes!
Starfleet's victories are barely skirmishes by the borg's standard. DS9 Relaunch:"Abyss" clearly established that even if the federation allied with the klingons and the romulans and the breen and the dominion, this alliance would still probably loose to the borg - imagine the borg sending 100000 cubes against the alpha quadrant.

What does that mean - it means that the borg doesn't need to commit genocide for self-defense or conquest.
The borg commits genocide because it's the easiest way to conquer other species (to add the biological and...). And that does exacerbate the conflict with who knows how many species. The borg doesn't care about that because he's so powerfull, he can take that in stride.

Now, let's assume the borg is not clearly stronger than the federation and it kills everyone on Earth/Vulcan/Andor. If the borg is ridiculously lucky, the federation will disintegrate. But, much more likely, the federation will use its creativity to strike at the borg much more viciously and continuously than the feds would do otherwise.

Again, logical, but irrelevent. This does not disprove my earlier points, as the Borg's methods of genocide are highly different from Section 31's method.

Recall, Section 31 used a virus that was passed by linking. If we are to assume, as most do, that Odo infected the Link in "Broken Link", than the entire link, including the Female Changeling, was infected. The exceptions, of course, were those infiltrators in the Quadrant--and of course, the Hundred.

Eventually, the infiltrators would doubtlessly report to those who were in the link at this point via linking, as the FC noted to Odo how unusual it was for her--and therefore, the other Founders--to communicate to each other any other way.

Thus, even if we are to assume that the only changeling actually infected by Section 31 was Odo--which, IMHO, is highly unlikely--than, that thus results in all the Founders being infected in time.

Now, of course, the objection may be raised: but what if those who are infected are simply isolated from the rest of the Founders, so that they don't link? The answer is: remember, they didn't know of the virus untill the seventh season of DS9--over three years after the conjectured date of infection. It is therefore logical to assume, then, that the majority of the Founders, at the very least, would be infected by that time. Also, if some of the Founders were not infected around that time, surely it would be those Founders, and not the FC, who would be overseeing Weyoun, Damar, and Thot Ghor.

PS - I want to thank you for your civility. This discussion would have devolved into a fight long ago if I had it with some of the other posters.

Civility, my friend, is my specialty.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Rush Limborg

Frankly, ProtoAvatar, I hardly think the Dominion War, as it was, was not a "total war".

31 was completely aware of the possibility of escalation--and indeed, they doubtlessly knew that escalation is a result of many different scenarios. They knew that, should the Dominion build up their war efforts--for whatever reason--the Allies would build up in turn.

As I already mentioned, S31 tries to commit genocide before the war began - when a chance of peace existed. This genocide attempt ensured "total war" in the future, when the founders would find out about the virus - and we saw "total war": the dominion did everything it could to win. The outcome of this war was uncertain - for anyone.
This alone makes S31's genocide not only immoral, but idiotic.

Should total war continue to ensue, the scenario would be the same except--the Founders would be gone, which means that the Dominion would be unable to retain the intelligence-related advantage they'd possessed with them.

Even if the virus would continue--and, indeed, escalate--the war, still, the removal of what is, frankly, the Dominion's most powerful and effective weapon was doubtlessly, to Section 31, worth the risk.

The founders were effective before the federation&allies installed security countermeasures - in DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost. Since that point there was't a single founder infiltration success - at least, none we found out about, meaning none of importance; and that despite the founders presence in the alpha quadrant as reported by Lazarus (the cardassian spy) in DS9:Change of heart.

The founders - the dominion's "most powerful and effective weapon"? Hardly - the founders were useless during the actual war.
The dominion's most dangerous ability is to create soldiers and ships with astonishing speed - which would not be affacted by the virus.

This also makes S31's genocide attempt idiotic.

Now, you noted how it was "luck" that caused the Allies to be victorious. Consider:

--Do you really think the Founders would have surrendered if not for the virus? It was painfully clear, from the beginning, that the Founders had a paranoid hatred of the solid races--believing that every single solid power not under their control was a threat to their existence. No...they would have fought to the bitter end, regardless of whether the solids fought "morally" or not.

--The Female Changeling surrendered because, quite simply, Odo showed her compassion and mercy--traits which he did not learn from the Founders, but from his friends.

--Due to her distrust of solids, logic suggests that she would not have accepted such a gift from the solids. It had to have been Odo who offered the cure.

My theory, as to how Section 31 "manipulated" events, was that, like in "Inter Arna...", they relied on Odo's morality to convince the Founders to surrender.

IT WAS LUCK that S31's attempted genocide stopped the war and didn't escalate it. The federation/S31 literally WON THE LOTTERY - that's the level of luck we're talking about.

The chance of the circumstances in which the female changeling surrendered actually happening was practically zero. And make no mistake - NO ONE could manipulate events on such a scale - that would imply controlling the outcome of a decisive battle of the war not to mention mind-controlling Odo, the female changeling and several others. And NO ONE could predict such an improbable outcome.

Much more likely, the virus would have completed its work (eradicating the founders) and, from that moment, the dominion's nr 1 priority (its reson for existing) would be to destroy the federation. If it couldn't use the wormhole, it would reach the federation the old fashion way (with warp drive), even if it takes a century.

And this, too, makes S31's genocide attempt idiotic.

Rush Limborg, genocide is not only immoral, but also ineffective (and I'm talking about the real world here).
As I repeatedly told you, there are only two situations in which genocide is effective:
1 you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
2 highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.
S31's genocide attempt is a textbook example of nr 2.

Thus, even if we are to assume that the only changeling actually infected by Section 31 was Odo--which, IMHO, is highly unlikely--than, that thus results in all the Founders being infected in time.

So, S31 tried to kill ALL founders, not just the infiltrators - I made that point a few posts back.

 

[Rush Limborg]

As I already mentioned, S31 tries to commit genocide before the war began - when a chance of peace existed. This genocide attempt ensured "total war" in the future, when the founders would find out about the virus - and we saw "total war": the dominion did everything it could to win. The outcome of this war was uncertain - for anyone.
This alone makes S31's genocide not only immoral, but idiotic.

You assume the possibility of peace with the Dominion. Again, the constant act of sabotage instigated by the Dominon--not just against the Federation, but against the Romulans, Cardassians, etc.--as well as the Founders' hatred of all solids not under their control.

DESPITE the temporary alliance to hunt down the rogue Jem'Hadar--and even then, this was for the simple reason that they needed to destroy the greater threat--the Founders saw, as we saw in the show, only one option other than war--appeasement and surrender from the solid powers.

The founders were effective before the federation&allies installed security countermeasures - in DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost. Since that point there was't a single founder infiltration success - at least, none we found out about, meaning none of importance; and that despite the founders presence in the alpha quadrant as reported by Lazarus (the cardassian spy) in DS9:Change of heart.

You forget the Bashir Changeling, and his sabotage plot; as well as the Martok Changeling, and his manipulation of Gowron.

The founders - the dominion's "most powerful and effective weapon"? Hardly - the founders were useless during the actual war.

Indeed. Need I remind you of the FC's role in the Breen alliance.

IT WAS LUCK that S31's attempted genocide stopped the war and didn't escalate it. The federation/S31 literally WON THE LOTTERY - that's the level of luck we're talking about.

The chance of the circumstances in which the female changeling surrendered actually happening was practically zero. And make no mistake - NO ONE could manipulate events on such a scale - that would imply controlling the outcome of a decisive battle of the war not to mention mind-controlling Odo, the female changeling and several others. And NO ONE could predict such an improbable outcome.

Much more likely, the virus would have completed its work (eradicating the founders) and, from that moment, the dominion's nr 1 priority (its reson for existing) would be to destroy the federation. If it couldn't use the wormhole, it would reach the federation the old fashion way (with warp drive), even if it takes a century.

And by that time, the Federation would be more advanced technologically, so that the century-long journey would result in complete defeat for the Dominion's fleet.

Also, how are we to assume that Ketracel-White could be produced on that long journey? On the Warships? So why the need for those processing facilities on the asteroids--surely production on the ships would've been more efficent for the war effort?

In other words, Section 31's plan works anyway.

Rush Limborg, genocide is not only immoral, but also ineffective (and I'm talking about the real world here).
As I repeatedly told you, there are only two situations in which genocide is effective:
1 you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
2 highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.
S31's genocide attempt is a textbook example of nr 2.

ProtoAvatar, once again, you have yet to logically prove your addendum to situation 1.

Thus, even if we are to assume that the only changeling actually infected by Section 31 was Odo--which, IMHO, is highly unlikely--than, that thus results in all the Founders being infected in time.

So, S31 tried to kill ALL founders, not just the infiltrators - I made that point a few posts back.

All the Founders, mind you--and as Odo often pointed out, The Hundred are not part of the Founders, per se.

As the vast majority of The Hundred did not reach the Founders by the time of DS9--therefore, they were not in danger. Therefore, the race would not be completely wiped out--and therefore, it is not really genocide.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

As I already mentioned, S31 tries to commit genocide before the war began - when a chance of peace existed. This genocide attempt ensured "total war" in the future, when the founders would find out about the virus - and we saw "total war": the dominion did everything it could to win. The outcome of this war was uncertain - for anyone.
This alone makes S31's genocide not only immoral, but idiotic.

You assume the possibility of peace with the Dominion. Again, the constant act of sabotage instigated by the Dominon--not just against the Federation, but against the Romulans, Cardassians, etc.--as well as the Founders' hatred of all solids not under their control.

Peace with the dominion WAS A POSSIBLE OUTCOME - and one much more probable than the events that ended the war.

The founders were effective before the federation&allies installed security countermeasures - in DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost. Since that point there was't a single founder infiltration success - at least, none we found out about, meaning none of importance; and that despite the founders presence in the alpha quadrant as reported by Lazarus (the cardassian spy) in DS9:Change of heart.

You forget the Bashir Changeling, and his sabotage plot; as well as the Martok Changeling, and his manipulation of Gowron.

The Martok changeling happened before DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost, and continued during a time when the klingons were not federation allies - as in, no technology/security measures transfer.
The Bashir changeling. Yes, that was an infiltrated changeling (who, apparently, was a sleeper - he never did anything until DS9:By Inferno's Light) - and the only one we ever saw who even came close to accomplishing his objective after DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost.
What about another infiltrated founder - who acted during the war, when the countermeasures were most likely increased? One that actually succeeded in his mission - or came as close as the Bashir impersonator? A planetary genocide or even something a lot more timid would be known to us through DS9 characters.

The founders - the dominion's "most powerful and effective weapon"? Hardly - the founders were useless during the actual war.

Indeed. Need I remind you of the FC's role in the Breen alliance.

By "F"C you mean "founder"?
The founder's abilities played absolutely NO PART in the breen alliance. A standard diplomat would have done the job equally well.

IT WAS LUCK that S31's attempted genocide stopped the war and didn't escalate it. The federation/S31 literally WON THE LOTTERY - that's the level of luck we're talking about.

The chance of the circumstances in which the female changeling surrendered actually happening was practically zero. And make no mistake - NO ONE could manipulate events on such a scale - that would imply controlling the outcome of a decisive battle of the war not to mention mind-controlling Odo, the female changeling and several others. And NO ONE could predict such an improbable outcome.

Much more likely, the virus would have completed its work (eradicating the founders) and, from that moment, the dominion's nr 1 priority (its reson for existing) would be to destroy the federation. If it couldn't use the wormhole, it would reach the federation the old fashion way (with warp drive), even if it takes a century.

And by that time, the Federation would be more advanced technologically, so that the century-long journey would result in complete defeat for the Dominion's fleet.

Also, how are we to assume that Ketracel-White could be produced on that long journey? On the Warships? So why the need for those processing facilities on the asteroids--surely production on the ships would've been more efficent for the war effort?

In other words, Section 31's plan works anyway.

Tetracel-white? Warships? The dominion wouldn't be stopped by such inconveniences.
The dominion fleet would stop every 30 years, conquer a few local powers, then replenish its tetracel-white provisions and build more warships with new technology provided by the dominion via subspace communication.

But let's say the first fleets sent wouldn't even make it to the federation.

How long do you think it will take for the dominion to develop a form of FTL fast enought to bring the federation within striking distance (with all its scientific resources focused on the problem)? A century? Two? Three? Or until the dominion finds another shortcut to the alpha quadrant - natural or otherwise?
Keep in mind, in the relaunch books, the federation has slipstream 5 years after the war. And they seem to find FTL shortcuts every other day.

Rush Limborg, genocide is not only immoral, but also ineffective (and I'm talking about the real world here).
As I repeatedly told you, there are only two situations in which genocide is effective:
1 you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
2 highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.
S31's genocide attempt is a textbook example of nr 2.

ProtoAvatar, once again, you have yet to logically prove your addendum to situation 1.

Isn't it obvious?
1 If you can clearly destroy most of your enemy's military, you can obviousy crush him, conquering your enemy.
And if you use genocide on your enemy, your enemy, despite his will to retaliate, won't be able to do so effectively, simply because you can crush him at will.
2 If your enemy has the means to effectively retaliate, he will do so, using everything he has in his arsenal - and only some very improbable events will prevent him from doing so (such as making peace with you or civil war).

So, S31 tried to kill ALL founders, not just the infiltrators - I made that point a few posts back.

All the Founders, mind you--and as Odo often pointed out, The Hundred are not part of the Founders, per se.

As the vast majority of The Hundred did not reach the Founders by the time of DS9--therefore, they were not in danger. Therefore, the race would not be completely wiped out--and therefore, it is not really genocide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

The word "genocide" (attempted genocide, but not for lack of trying on S31's part) most definitely applies to S31's actions.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Peace with the dominion WAS A POSSIBLE OUTCOME - and one much more probable than the events that ended the war.

How so? You constantly assert that, without proving your line of reasoning.

The Martok changeling happened before DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost, and continued during a time when the klingons were not federation allies - as in, no technology/security measures transfer.

Note the scar on Martok's face in "The Way of The Warrior"--a scar he did not have when "real" Martok was discovered. The changeling, however, did have this scar. Also, "real" Martok strongly implied that he was abducted before the treaty ended.

The Bashir changeling. Yes, that was an infiltrated changeling (who, apparently, was a sleeper - he never did anything until DS9:By Inferno's Light) - and the only one we ever saw who even came close to accomplishing his objective after DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost.
What about another infiltrated founder - who acted during the war, when the countermeasures were most likely increased? One that actually succeeded in his mission - or came as close as the Bashir impersonator? A planetary genocide or even something a lot more timid would be known to us through DS9 characters.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of things in that time period we don't know about. Just because we didn't see the characters talk about it onscreen does not mean it didn't happen.

And again, considering how "important" the info the spy had in "Change of Heart" was indicated to be, I'd say there were missions they undertook.

BTW...perhaps the reason we didn't hear of aby successes on their part...was because Section 31 was dealing with them. Just saying.

By "F"C you mean "founder"?

By "FC" I mean Female Changeling.

The founder's abilities played absolutely NO PART in the breen alliance. A standard diplomat would have done the job equally well.

And you know this...?

Tetracel-white? Warships? The dominion wouldn't be stopped by such inconveniences.
The dominion fleet would stop every 30 years, conquer a few local powers, then replenish its tetracel-white provisions and build more warships with new technology provided by the dominion via subspace communication.

Again, this does not change the fact that they would still have a limited supply of White should they eventually reach Allied space.

Should they return in this manner--and should they thus try to set up new facilities--the Allies would logically make those facilities key targets. Unlike the first war, the Donimion would not have the defenses of of the Cardassian border--and there would not be a "calm" before the storm, as there was in Season 5.

But let's say the first fleets sent wouldn't even make it to the federation.

How long do you think it will take for the dominion to develop a form of FTL fast enought to bring the federation within striking distance (with all its scientific resources focused on the problem)? A century? Two? Three? Or until the dominion finds another shortcut to the alpha quadrant - natural or otherwise?
Keep in mind, in the relaunch books, the federation has slipstream 5 years after the war. And they seem to find FTL shortcuts every other day.

The Federation, yes. Which proves my point that, by that time, the UFP would have developed sufficient countermeasures to defend against the threat with different--and arguably, better--methods.

Isn't it obvious?
1 If you can clearly destroy most of your enemy's military, you can obviousy crush him, conquering your enemy.
And if you use genocide on your enemy, your enemy, despite his will to retaliate, won't be able to do so effectively, simply because you can crush him at will.

Under normal circumstances, this is true.

However, note that the Virus is a biological weapon, not a technological weapon. You argument would be valid if 31's method of genocide were similar in any way to the conventional defensive capabilities of the Federation. It was not.

2 If your enemy has the means to effectively retaliate, he will do so, using everything he has in his arsenal - and only some very improbable events will prevent him from doing so (such as making peace with you or civil war).

As pointed out by Sci, civil war is not as improbable as you think.

And besides, the Dominion was using everything in its arsenal anyway--it is illogical not to do so, in times of full-scale war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

The word "genocide" (attempted genocide, but not for lack of trying on S31's part) most definitely applies to S31's actions.

National group.

Thus, by that argument, any act of war against another nation, any action of "shooting" at enemy soldiers, is therefore genocide.

Again, I repeat the moral argument:

Let's start with a black-and-white area: Murder is immoral. Under normal circumstances, killing is immoral. However, shooting to kill on a battlefield is not immoral. Why is that?

Now a shade-of-grey. Mass murder, under normal circumstances, is immoral. Yet, was Hiroshima immoral? Keep in mind that the alternative was to let the war go on for a very long time--and that the loss of life would have been greater.

The point is, in times of war, you must do what is neccesary to defend yourself. Now, you can argue about when Section 31 created the virus all you want, but the point is, war did break out--and, as the series makes clear, it broke out for different reasons than any "discovery" of the virus origins.

I am still not convinced that the Founders knew of the origins of the virus until long after the war broke out. There is no indication whatsoever that they knew. Yes, they eventually found out, but was that due to their own intel, or to Odo?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Peace with the dominion WAS A POSSIBLE OUTCOME - and one much more probable than the events that ended the war.

How so? You constantly assert that, without proving your line of reasoning.

Isn't it obvious?
There was even a joint dominion/federation mission at one point.
The sheer improbability of the events that led to the end of the war (after S31's genocide attempt) means that the possibility of peace with the dominion before the war was much more likely.

The Martok changeling happened before DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost, and continued during a time when the klingons were not federation allies - as in, no technology/security measures transfer.

Note the scar on Martok's face in "The Way of The Warrior"--a scar he did not have when "real" Martok was discovered. The changeling, however, did have this scar. Also, "real" Martok strongly implied that he was abducted before the treaty ended.

So?
The treaty ended before DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost. The klingons didn't benefit from antifounder countermeasures at that point. And the klingons didn't have access to them until long after the Martok changeling was exposed.

The Bashir changeling. Yes, that was an infiltrated changeling (who, apparently, was a sleeper - he never did anything until DS9:By Inferno's Light) - and the only one we ever saw who even came close to accomplishing his objective after DS9:Homefront, Paradise lost.
What about another infiltrated founder - who acted during the war, when the countermeasures were most likely increased? One that actually succeeded in his mission - or came as close as the Bashir impersonator? A planetary genocide or even something a lot more timid would be known to us through DS9 characters.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of things in that time period we don't know about. Just because we didn't see the characters talk about it onscreen does not mean it didn't happen.

And again, considering how "important" the info the spy had in "Change of Heart" was indicated to be, I'd say there were missions they undertook.

BTW...perhaps the reason we didn't hear of aby successes on their part...was because Section 31 was dealing with them. Just saying.

If the characters didn't talk on-screen about a planetary genocide or about a federation fleet being lost for no gain, IT DIDNT HAPPEN. These events are TOO BIG to never be mentioned on-screen.

And about S31 "dealing" with founder spies - first you make S31 able to control the dominion, then the outcome of a major battle of the war and the minds of leaders on both sides, and now you make it so powerful within the federation that IT CAN DISCOVER AND DEAL WITH THE FOUNDER SPIES WITHOUT BEING NOTICED?
How many resources do you think S31 has? How influential do you think it is? You make it sound as if starfleet intelligence, and, indeed, all of starfleet works for S31; as if every tenth federation citizen works for S31.

The founder's abilities played absolutely NO PART in the breen alliance. A standard diplomat would have done the job equally well.

And you know this...?

Rush Limborg, I wish you would stop with questions that have so obvious answers. It's wasting time.

As to your question - do you really think that the founder's shapeshifting abilities played any part in creating the alliance with the breen? How do you picture that? The founder performing circus triks in front of the breen to gain their favor?

If the founder's shapeshifting abilities played no part in creating the breen alliance, then a mere NON-shapeshifting humanoid could do the job equally well.

Tetracel-white? Warships? The dominion wouldn't be stopped by such inconveniences.
The dominion fleet would stop every 30 years, conquer a few local powers, then replenish its tetracel-white provisions and build more warships with new technology provided by the dominion via subspace communication.

Again, this does not change the fact that they would still have a limited supply of White should they eventually reach Allied space.

Should they return in this manner--and should they thus try to set up new facilities--the Allies would logically make those facilities key targets. Unlike the first war, the Donimion would not have the defenses of of the Cardassian border--and there would not be a "calm" before the storm, as there was in Season 5.

Rush Limborg, they would build new warships, jem'hadar and replenish their white reserves every 30 years. The dominion fleet would lack nothing when they reach the alpha quadrant - indeed it could very well be twice as powerful as the fleet that left the dominion. And it won't be the only fleet - the dominion could send a new large fleet every 5 years - at the most.

About "borders" - what matters is the size of the fleet that protects these borders. The cardassian borders became so impregnable because they were defended by a large fleet.
And the fleets the dominion would continuously send would be sizeable - thousands of ships.

But let's say the first fleets sent wouldn't even make it to the federation.

How long do you think it will take for the dominion to develop a form of FTL fast enought to bring the federation within striking distance (with all its scientific resources focused on the problem)? A century? Two? Three? Or until the dominion finds another shortcut to the alpha quadrant - natural or otherwise?
Keep in mind, in the relaunch books, the federation has slipstream 5 years after the war. And they seem to find FTL shortcuts every other day.

The Federation, yes. Which proves my point that, by that time, the UFP would have developed sufficient countermeasures to defend against the threat with different--and arguably, better--methods.

You're underestimating the dominion to a ridiculous extent.
The dominion's tech was equal, even superior in some areas, to the federation's.

If the federation could develop slipstream in 5 years, so can the dominion - in a similar amount of time. What I said earlier about the dominion sending centaurian fleets would only happen in the unlikely situation in which the dominion can't develop something similar to slipstream. Much more likely, the dominion would develop such a tech and attack the federation within 5-10 years of the war. And it won't stop until either it, or the federation is destroyed.

The federation would develop better weapons? So would the dominion.

Isn't it obvious?
1 If you can clearly destroy most of your enemy's military, you can obviousy crush him, conquering your enemy.
And if you use genocide on your enemy, your enemy, despite his will to retaliate, won't be able to do so effectively, simply because you can crush him at will.

Under normal circumstances, this is true.

However, note that the Virus is a biological weapon, not a technological weapon. You argument would be valid if 31's method of genocide were similar in any way to the conventional defensive capabilities of the Federation. It was not.

The nature of the weapon - biological, technological - doesn't matter.
If the weapon has the ability to annihilate the enemy's military, you don't need genocide to win the war.
If the weapon doesn't have the ability to destroy the enemy's military/a very large part of this military, the conflict will escalate. S31's weapon is of this type - and the conflict didn't escalate because the DS9 situation is a textbook example of exception nr 2.

2 If your enemy has the means to effectively retaliate, he will do so, using everything he has in his arsenal - and only some very improbable events will prevent him from doing so (such as making peace with you or civil war).

As pointed out by Sci, civil war is not as improbable as you think.

And besides, the Dominion was using everything in its arsenal anyway--it is illogical not to do so, in times of full-scale war.

I see you came around and agree that the dominion was fighting a total war.

If the genocide had succeeded, the dominion would have never stopped. NEVER. That's the difference from the "total war" the dominion was already fighting.
Only ridiculous luck enabled the federation to make peace with the dominion after a genocide attempt.

And about "civil war in the dominion" being likely - THAT is an unsupported affirmation, Rush Limborg.
The dying founders give the worshiping jem'hadar and vorta a last order before dying - destroy their killers - and you think the jem'hadar/vorta won't follow it? Come on, Rush Limborg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

The word "genocide" (attempted genocide, but not for lack of trying on S31's part) most definitely applies to S31's actions.

National group.

Thus, by that argument, any act of war against another nation, any action of "shooting" at enemy soldiers, is therefore genocide.

Killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield is not genocide. Killing tens of thousand of people (regardless of their status as civilian/military) in order to eradicate "in whole or in part" "an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" IS GENOCIDE.

Again, I repeat the moral argument:

Let's start with a black-and-white area: Murder is immoral. Under normal circumstances, killing is immoral. However, shooting to kill on a battlefield is not immoral. Why is that?

That would be because a soldier kills an enemy soldier in self-defense.

Now a shade-of-grey. Mass murder, under normal circumstances, is immoral. Yet, was Hiroshima immoral? Keep in mind that the alternative was to let the war go on for a very long time--and that the loss of life would have been greater.

Rush Limborg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE IMMORAL.

The loss of life in other scenarios would be higher? This only applies to non-nuclear scenarios - which were obsolete the moment the americans obtained the atomic bomb.

The americans could have atomically blown up Moult Fuji, if they wanted to intimidate the japanese into surrendering. Or they could blow up a japanese military base to show their strength.
The americans could have blown up every important japanese military base (using smaller atomic bombs) before invading Japan.

They had enough atomic bombs for such warnings/such operations -they made 3 atomic bombs per month:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
"The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October."

But the americans used their first two atomic strikes INTENTIONALLY to kill as many japanese as possible:

"The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."

In case you're wondering, THIS IS GENOCIDE. It's not regarded as such simply because history is made by the winners.

Why did it work? Because, the moment the americans obtained the atomic bomb, they had the abitity to completely destroy the japanese military.
Plus, the japanese were depleted after the war. Not that this would make a difference - they knew they had no chance to defeat the americans armed with the atomic bomb.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a textbook example of my nr 1 case where genocide ends the war - a case where genocide is also unneeded/gratuitous.

The point is, in times of war, you must do what is neccesary to defend yourself. Now, you can argue about when Section 31 created the virus all you want, but the point is, war did break out--and, as the series makes clear, it broke out for different reasons than any "discovery" of the virus origins.

For the umpteenth time - genocide is not only immoral, but ineffective.

I am still not convinced that the Founders knew of the origins of the virus until long after the war broke out. There is no indication whatsoever that they knew. Yes, they eventually found out, but was that due to their own intel, or to Odo?

I discussed in detail and refuted this ideea in my previous posts from this thread. Here, you are only repeating yourself - you brought no argument I didn't already refuted.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Meh, we know the Founders were fond of geonicide themselves. Seemed like just desserts from a mythology stand point.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Good point, MeanJoePhaser.



Frankly, ProtoAvatar, your refutations were, themselves, simple repetitions of your earlier statements. Therefore, I refuted your statements with previous statements of my own.

And, I never stated that the Dominion was not waging total war anyway. That was a premise of mine from the beginning.

Also, you seem to express frustration in defending what you deem as "obvious". If it truly is obvious, and I refuse to see it, than it is clear that no amount of reasoning can convince me. However, as you have noted, I try to maintain this debate on a civil basis, with the intent of trying to convince you of the valididty of my side of the argument, rationally.

Rationally, what you have stated as "obvious" is not obvious to me. In this case, I was not referring to the Founders' shapeshifting abilities. I was referring to the Founders' minds, their tactical intellects. Note, again, how the FC is often contemptuous of Weyoun's abilities as a tactician....

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that if a big event wasn't talked about on screen, it therefore didn't happen. Again, "Change of Heart" strongly implies that it was happening--our crew was just focused on matters that were their responsibility. The infiltrators were the responsablility of the intelligence community--Federation Security, Starfleet Intelligenge, and yes, Section 31.



Again, as in the preivious debate with Sci, on a factual basis, we both have valid lines of reasoning--but they both stem from conjectural events which happen off camera. Thus, this debate could theoretically happen indefinitely, with no end in sight, for the simple reason that the evidence we require is all off camera.

The reason, then, that we are repeating ourselves, unable to gain any ground in this "no man's land", is because there is no common ground on which we can agree on in this "practicallity" debate--nor will there be, until and unless canon reveals information to that effect.



The simple central element of this debate, then, is on a moral basis. You claim Hiroshima was immoral. You claim the virus was immoral.

I believe, in times of war, you have to make a lot of hard choices. As Ezri noted in "AR-558", sometimes we have to use the enemy's own tactics against it. Indeed, shooting to kill is not immoral if it is in defense. In the same way, in times of war, when a nation is defending itself, it must be prepared to keep all options on the table--even if it means getting its hands dirty.

Now, we can argue about "practicality" all we want, but it doesn't change a thing morally. The moral debate is still there, and will remain long after the practicallity debate has worn itself out (as, I think, it has, considering how we are reduced to repeating ourselves).

Now...you claim that genocide is, intrisically and completely, immoral--no matter what.

I bring up "The Man Trap" again. Was Kirk justified in his desire to kill the creature who was killing his crew, knowing that it was the last of its kind?

Remember...it had superior strength, and thus there was a significant possibility that it would resist the stun setting, and overpower the security guards.

Thus it was either commit genocide, or risk more of Kirk's crew dying.

 

[DevilEyes]

Meh, we know the Founders were fond of geonicide themselves. Seemed like just desserts from a mythology stand point.

^Good point, MeanJoePhaser.

Awful point, actually. On par with "There are no cannibals among us anymore, we ate the last one yesterday".

"This race/ethnic group is genocidal so they deserve to be exterminated". Yes, I've heard that one before. You better not know where and in which context. I just wasn't expecting to see it here.

I bring up "The Man Trap" again. Was Kirk justified in his desire to kill the creature who was killing his crew, knowing that it was the last of its kind?

Remember...it had superior strength, and thus there was a significant possibility that it would resist the stun setting, and overpower the security guards.

Thus it was either commit genocide, or risk more of Kirk's crew dying.

I don't understand WHY you keep repeating it, when it's completely illogical. You simply don't seem to understand what genocide is. The creature had already killed people and was attacking his crewmembers with the intent of killing them. Whether it was the last of its kind or not makes no difference. If the last of the Mohicans were a serial killer attacking you, of course you'd have every right to kill him in self-defense.

Now, if Kirk killed/tried to kill innocent members of the M-113 species who were not posing any immediate danger to anyone, only because they were members of the M-113 species, THAT would be genocide.

And that's exactly what Section 31 was doing with the virus.

Don't try to argue that there were no innocent Founders who were posing no danger to the Federation. We know full well that there was at least one: Odo. He was even on Federation's side, but Section 31 infected him with a deadly disease and clearly had no intention of ever curing him.

Killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield is not genocide. Killing tens of thousand of people (regardless of their status as civilian/military) in order to eradicate "in whole or in part" "an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group" IS GENOCIDE.

That would be because a soldier kills an enemy soldier in self-defense.

Rush Limborg, Hiroshima and Nagasaki WERE IMMORAL.

The loss of life in other scenarios would be higher? This only applies to non-nuclear scenarios - which were obsolete the moment the americans obtained the atomic bomb.

The americans could have atomically blown up Moult Fuji, if they wanted to intimidate the japanese into surrendering. Or they could blow up a japanese military base to show their strength.
The americans could have blown up every important japanese military base (using smaller atomic bombs) before invading Japan.

They had enough atomic bombs for such warnings/such operations -they made 3 atomic bombs per month:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
"The U.S. expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use in the third week of August, with three more in September and a further three in October."

But the americans used their first two atomic strikes INTENTIONALLY to kill as many japanese as possible:

"The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."

In case you're wondering, THIS IS GENOCIDE. It's not regarded as such simply because history is made by the winners.

Why did it work? Because, the moment the americans obtained the atomic bomb, they had the abitity to completely destroy the japanese military.
Plus, the japanese were depleted after the war. Not that this would make a difference - they knew they had no chance to defeat the americans armed with the atomic bomb.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are a textbook example of my nr 1 case where genocide ends the war - a case where genocide is also unneeded/gratuitous.

Damn right.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Meh, we know the Founders were fond of geonicide themselves. Seemed like just desserts from a mythology stand point.

^Good point, MeanJoePhaser.

Awful point, actually. On par with "There are no cannibals among us anymore, we ate the last one yesterday".

"This race/ethnic group is genocidal so they deserve to be exterminated". Yes, I've heard that one before. You better not know where and in which context. I just wasn't expecting to see it here.

Not necessarily. I'm just saying that they're not exactly "innocent" in these matters. It isn't a "Black-and-White" issue. It might be if they were following the "rules of war", which they were not.

I bring up "The Man Trap" again. Was Kirk justified in his desire to kill the creature who was killing his crew, knowing that it was the last of its kind?

Remember...it had superior strength, and thus there was a significant possibility that it would resist the stun setting, and overpower the security guards.

Thus it was either commit genocide, or risk more of Kirk's crew dying.

I don't understand WHY you keep repeating it, when it's completely illogical. You simply don't seem to understand what genocide is. The creature had already killed people and was attacking his crewmembers with the intent of killing them. Whether it was the last of its kind or not makes no difference. If the last of the Mohicans were a serial killer attacking you, of course you'd have every right to kill him in self-defense.

Now, if Kirk killed/tried to kill innocent members of the M-113 species who were not posing any immediate danger to anyone, only because they were members of the M-113 species, THAT would be genocide.

Exactly. We make an exception in the case of defense.

And that's exactly what Section 31 was doing with the virus.

Don't try to argue that there were no innocent Founders who were posing no danger to the Federation. We know full well that there was at least one: Odo. He was even on Federation's side, but Section 31 infected him with a deadly disease and clearly had no intention of ever curing him.

Nor did they have any intention of his having the symptoms. In all probablility, he got the full disease when he linked with the FC in the beginning of Season 6.

BTW...the Hundred, again, were not infected--because they did not meet the Link yet. And they posed no threat.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Frankly, ProtoAvatar, your refutations were, themselves, simple repetitions of your earlier statements. Therefore, I refuted your statements with previous statements of my own.

Hardly, Rush Limborg. I refuted all your arguments in my previous posts.
You are the one who repeats himself, ignoring my counterarguments.

Also, you raise questions whose answer is obvious. For example, why the founder's abilities played no part in the breen alliance - it was obvious we were talking about the shapeshifting abilities; ALL their other abilities were not unique to the founders and their genocide would not have deprived the donimion of such abilities; the founders were an "unique weapon" only due to their shapeshifting.

Other tactics you use is to invoke off-screen improbable events as having happened (as in off-screen founder successes) or to claim highly improbable events would most likely hapen (as in civil war within the dominion would be probable if the founder genocide succeeded).
About the off-screen founder successes - a major success (such as a planet/fleet falling) would be reported on-screen just like Betazed's fall was. Also, such successes would create a rise in founder-related paranoia (much like after season 3 finale). NONE OF THIS HAPPENED.

And this is why I'm becoming frustrated.

The simple central element of this debate, then, is on a moral basis. You claim Hiroshima was immoral. You claim the virus was immoral.

Rush Limborg, GENOCIDE IS ALWAYS IMMORAL. There's not a single possible case in which genocide is moral.

Now, we can argue about "practicality" all we want, but it doesn't change a thing morally. The moral debate is still there, and will remain long after the practicallity debate has worn itself out (as, I think, it has, considering how we are reduced to repeating ourselves).

As i repeatedly PROVED - and you were unable to demonstrate the contrary - genocide is not only immoral, but also ineffective.

Now...you claim that genocide is, intrisically and completely, immoral--no matter what.

I bring up "The Man Trap" again. Was Kirk justified in his desire to kill the creature who was killing his crew, knowing that it was the last of its kind?

Remember...it had superior strength, and thus there was a significant possibility that it would resist the stun setting, and overpower the security guards.

Thus it was either commit genocide, or risk more of Kirk's crew dying.

In TOS:The man trap, the crew killed an enemy soldier in self-defense.
This is completely different from genocide. In the case of genocide, you intend to kill (deliberate and systematic destruction) in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

You think genocide is moral when you do it in order to defend against a POSSIBLE ATTACK in some NEBULOSE FUTURE.
THIS IS NOT SELF DEFNSE, Rush Limborg.
You don't kill an enemy attking you. You kill innocents, on the assumtion that, among them, are some (few) who will attck you in the future

I believe, in times of war, you have to make a lot of hard choices. As Ezri noted in "AR-558", sometimes we have to use the enemy's own tactics against it. Indeed, shooting to kill is not immoral if it is in defense. In the same way, in times of war, when a nation is defending itself, it must be prepared to keep all options on the table--even if it means getting its hands dirty.

This is 24 talking again.
I already explained why one shoud always take with a grain of salt the ideas supported by any show.

As I already explained, genocide is not effective in ending any conflict - only in exacerbating it.

I try to maintain this debate on a civil basis, with the intent of trying to convince you of the valididty of my side of the argument, rationally.

Yes, you did try to maintain the debate civil. This is a plus point for you.

If it truly is obvious, and I refuse to see it, than it is clear that no amount of reasoning can convince me.

This is sadly becoming clear. Your refusal to listen to reason, preferring to believe in your dogma is a definite minus point for you, Rush Limborg.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Hardly, Rush Limborg. I refuted all your arguments in my previous posts.
You are the one who repeats himself, ignoring my counterarguments.

Indeed.

Also, you raise questions whose answer is obvious. For example, why the founder's abilities played no part in the breen alliance - it was obvious we were talking about the shapeshifting abilities; ALL their other abilities were not unique to the founders and their genocide would not have deprived the donimion of such abilities; the founders were an "unique weapon" only due to their shapeshifting.

You did not answer a question I kept asking: If Weyoun could do the job of leading as effectively as the Founder, why didn't she seem to think so? She viewed him as an imbecile, not as a "go-to" guy.

Other tactics you use is to invoke off-screen improbable events as having happened (as in off-screen founder successes) or to claim highly improbable events would most likely hapen (as in civil war within the dominion would be probable if the founder genocide succeeded).

You have yet to explain why you believe that civil war would be improbable.

About the off-screen founder successes - a major success (such as a planet/fleet falling) would be reported on-screen just like Betazed's fall was. Also, such successes would create a rise in founder-related paranoia (much like after season 3 finale). NONE OF THIS HAPPENED.

If what you say is true...than why was it SUCH a big deal that Worf and Dax get the info on the changeling infiltrators?

And this is why I'm becoming frustrated.

I see.

Rush Limborg, GENOCIDE IS ALWAYS IMMORAL. There's not a single possible case in which genocide is moral.

As i repeatedly PROVED - and you were unable to demonstrate the contrary - genocide is not only immoral, but also ineffective.

Sir, you proved nothing of the kind. Consider:

In TOS:The man trap, the crew killed an enemy soldier in self-defense.
This is completely different from genocide. In the case of genocide, you intend to kill (deliberate and systematic destruction) in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

And...did Kirk not intend to kill, in whole or in part, what was left of a racial, national group? Before, mind you, the creature attacked him--but after it killed members of his crew?

So...we make an exception in case of the enemy killing our fellows. Note the constant attempts--before "Homefront"--they made to sabotage the stability of the Quadrant.

--They manipulated the Obsidian Order and the Tal Shiar, tricking them into attacking the Founder Homeworld--so that they would cripple the Empire and the Union.

--They manipluated events so that they could cause a war between the Tzenkethi and the Federation.

--They, with the Martok changeling, manipulated the Klingon Empire to dissolve the peace with the Federation, which would eventually dissolve into war.

And finally, of course, we come to "Homefront", in which the commit various acts of sabotage so as to manipulate the Federation into crumbling from within.

Despite the joint-Federation-Dominion alliance (which, mind you, was formed for the simple reason that the rogue Jem'Hadar were a mutual super-threat--and once that alliance was over, they went back to their old status), hotilities were reaching a boiling point, no matter what.

Unless, of course, the EXTREMELY unlikely event happens that peace starts to be formed. And you gave me a lot of grief for bringing up what you claim are "unlikely scenarios".

You think genocide is moral when you do it in order to defend against a POSSIBLE ATTACK in some NEBULOSE FUTURE.
THIS IS NOT SELF DEFNSE, Rush Limborg.

It was not simply "possible". It was highly probable--indeed, one might say inevitable.

Again, Kirk tried to kill the salt creature after it killed members of his crew--and before it attacked him.

You don't kill an enemy attking you. You kill innocents, on the assumtion that, among them, are some (few) who will attck you in the future

Now, of course that's absurd. I do not support that, and I do not saction those who do. We are reasonable people, sir. Straw-man arguments do not become us.

This is 24 talking again.
I already explained why one shoud always take with a grain of salt the ideas supported by any show.

Such as...Star Trek?

Yes, you did try to maintain the debate civil. This is a plus point for you.

Thank you.

This is sadly becoming clear. Your refusal to listen to reason, preferring to believe in your dogma is a definite minus point for you, Rush Limborg.

Indeed.

That's the thing about debates. Every side goes home thinking that they won--unless the event occurs that one person get's "stumped".

In the end...each of us has a valid line of reasoning, logically consistant with our respective first principles. The reason neither of us can convince each other is, quite simply, that there is no real "common ground" between your first principles and mine.

Under normal circumstances, history would prove which one of us is right. As Thomas Paine said, "Time make more converts than reason".

However, as we are debating something from Star Trek--and therefore don't know everything about what was going on, we don't have history to refer to.

Just saying.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Also, you raise questions whose answer is obvious. For example, why the founder's abilities played no part in the breen alliance - it was obvious we were talking about the shapeshifting abilities; ALL their other abilities were not unique to the founders and their genocide would not have deprived the donimion of such abilities; the founders were an "unique weapon" only due to their shapeshifting.

You did not answer a question I kept asking: If Weyoun could do the job of leading as effectively as the Founder, why didn't she seem to think so? She viewed him as an imbecile, not as a "go-to" guy.

Because the female founder suffered from a huge superiority complex.

You have yet to explain why you believe that civil war would be improbable.

I did explain it - twice:

"And about "civil war in the dominion" being likely - THAT is an unsupported affirmation, Rush Limborg.
The dying founders give the worshiping jem'hadar and vorta a last order before dying - destroy their killers - and you think the jem'hadar/vorta won't follow it? Come on, Rush Limborg."

If what you say is true...than why was it SUCH a big deal that Worf and Dax get the info on the changeling infiltrators?

The federation took the changelings very seriously after what happened in DS9:The Adversary. In the end, the founders proved less dangerous than beleived.

Sir, you proved nothing of the kind.

"Rush Limborg, genocide is not only immoral, but also ineffective (and I'm talking about the real world here).
As I repeatedly told you, there are only two situations in which genocide is effective:
1 you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
2 highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.
S31's genocide attempt is a textbook example of nr 2."

And...did Kirk not intend to kill, in whole or in part, what was left of a racial, national group? Before, mind you, the creature attacked him--but after it killed members of his crew?

I can't beleive you think Kirk commited genocide.
Please, familiarize yourself with the notion of genocide before continuing with this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
(Read the entire page before continuing)

--They manipulated the Obsidian Order and the Tal Shiar, tricking them into attacking the Founder Homeworld--so that they would cripple the Empire and the Union.

--They manipluated events so that they could cause a war between the Tzenkethi and the Federation.

--They, with the Martok changeling, manipulated the Klingon Empire to dissolve the peace with the Federation, which would eventually dissolve into war.

And finally, of course, we come to "Homefront", in which the commit various acts of sabotage so as to manipulate the Federation into crumbling from within.

Despite the joint-Federation-Dominion alliance (which, mind you, was formed for the simple reason that the rogue Jem'Hadar were a mutual super-threat--and once that alliance was over, they went back to their old status), hotilities were reaching a boiling point, no matter what.

None of this excuses or justifies genocide.

Unless, of course, the EXTREMELY unlikely event happens that peace starts to be formed. And you gave me a lot of grief for bringing up what you claim are "unlikely scenarios".

Yes, peace with the dominion before the war was unlikely.
But not as unlikely as the founder genocide neutering the dominion as a threat or leadind to peace with the dominion.

Such as...Star Trek?

Yes, such as star trek. Sometimes, star trek supported some truly rubbish/nonsensical ideas - such as the prime directive as understood in TNG:Homeward.

This is sadly becoming clear. Your refusal to listen to reason, preferring to believe in your dogma is a definite minus point for you, Rush Limborg.

Indeed.

That's the thing about debates. Every side goes home thinking that they won--unless the event occurs that one person get's "stumped".

In the end...each of us has a valid line of reasoning, logically consistant with our respective first principles. The reason neither of us can convince each other is, quite simply, that there is no real "common ground" between your first principles and mine.

Under normal circumstances, history would prove which one of us is right. As Thomas Paine said, "Time make more converts than reason".

So - you propose to agree to disagree?

I talked about genocide being immoral and impractical.

About genocide being impractical - let's agree to disagree, if only because you repeated the same arguments ad nauseam despite me repeteadly proving them false. Also, because the ironic-condescending remarks from your last post indicate that you are losing patience.

About genocide being immoral - if you don't agree with this, then your "first principles", I'm sorry to say, are at odds with basic moral. I don't think that's the case, though. I think the problem is that you don't have an adequate understanding of the notion of "genocide".

 

[Rush Limborg]

Also, you raise questions whose answer is obvious. For example, why the founder's abilities played no part in the breen alliance - it was obvious we were talking about the shapeshifting abilities; ALL their other abilities were not unique to the founders and their genocide would not have deprived the donimion of such abilities; the founders were an "unique weapon" only due to their shapeshifting.

You did not answer a question I kept asking: If Weyoun could do the job of leading as effectively as the Founder, why didn't she seem to think so? She viewed him as an imbecile, not as a "go-to" guy.

Because the female founder suffered from a huge superiority complex.



I did explain it - twice:

"And about "civil war in the dominion" being likely - THAT is an unsupported affirmation, Rush Limborg.
The dying founders give the worshiping jem'hadar and vorta a last order before dying - destroy their killers - and you think the jem'hadar/vorta won't follow it? Come on, Rush Limborg."



The federation took the changelings very seriously after what happened in DS9:The Adversary. In the end, the founders proved less dangerous than beleived.



"Rush Limborg, genocide is not only immoral, but also ineffective (and I'm talking about the real world here).
As I repeatedly told you, there are only two situations in which genocide is effective:
1 you do have the ability to kill most of your enemies (civilian and military alike) - in which case, militarily speaking, you're stronger to the point that genocide is not necessary for you to win the war;
2 highly improbable events come to pass because you're just really really lucky.
S31's genocide attempt is a textbook example of nr 2."



I can't beleive you think Kirk commited genocide.
Please, familiarize yourself with the notion of genocide before continuing with this discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
(Read the entire page before continuing)




None of this excuses or justifies genocide.



Yes, peace with the dominion before the war was unlikely.
But not as unlikely as the founder genocide neutering the dominion as a threat or leadind to peace with the dominion.



Yes, such as star trek. Sometimes, star trek supported some truly rubbish/nonsensical ideas - such as the prime directive as understood in TNG:Homeward.

This is sadly becoming clear. Your refusal to listen to reason, preferring to believe in your dogma is a definite minus point for you, Rush Limborg.

Indeed.

That's the thing about debates. Every side goes home thinking that they won--unless the event occurs that one person get's "stumped".

In the end...each of us has a valid line of reasoning, logically consistant with our respective first principles. The reason neither of us can convince each other is, quite simply, that there is no real "common ground" between your first principles and mine.

Under normal circumstances, history would prove which one of us is right. As Thomas Paine said, "Time make more converts than reason".

So - you propose to agree to disagree?

I talked about genocide being immoral and impractical.

About genocide being impractical - let's agree to disagree, if only because you repeated the same arguments ad nauseam despite me repeteadly proving them false. Also, because the ironic-condescending remarks from your last post indicate that you are losing patience.

About genocide being immoral - if you don't agree with this, then your "first principles", I'm sorry to say, are at odds with basic moral. I don't think that's the case, though. I think the problem is that you don't have an adequate understanding of the notion of "genocide".

I...would think I have an excuse about losing patience--if, indeed, I was--as I would contend that it's the both of us who are reduced to repeating ourselves.

But anyhow, I am getting a little tired--but that's for the simple reason that this debate is going on for so long....

But, maybe you might have a point as to my problem with the definition of "genocide". It seems, then, that "Killing off the last of its kind" is not genocide if it's done in defense.

If that's your argument, than I agree--it's only moral in times of defense. This, however, was the point I was trying to make all along.

Nonetheless, our disagreement was regarding which situations would excuse this. Perhaps more on this, in time.