Sisko's Pale Moonlight

[Dayton3]

What Sisko did was fully justified.

What President Bush did was fully justified.

I voted for him twice and would a third time if I had the option. And I voted on him knowing full well that he intended to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein.

By the way, I could've enjoyed "In The Pale Moonlight" more if Sisko hadn't seemed to whine about his actions so much.

I mean, come on.

The Romulans were longstanding enemies of the Federation who just a couple of years before had planned to destroy Deep Space Nine with a cloaked warbird.

What did Sisko and the Federation owe the Romulans?

Nothing!!!

 

[Navaros]

The Sisko's actions were dirty but justified & necessary.

Bush/Cheney's actions were simply dirty, and totally unjustified & unnecessary.

As such, the wording of the Poll is flawed. It is possible that the Sisko's actions were wrong despite having a noble purpose behind them, but no way they could in any way be as wrong as Bush/Cheney's actions which had no purpose behind them (other than perhaps, trading blood for oil).

 

[doublegood]

Sisko's actions were morally questionable at best.

The real question is...would you do the same thing?

 

[psikeyhackr]

By the way, I could've enjoyed "In The Pale Moonlight" more if Sisko hadn't seemed to whine about his actions so much.

I mean, come on.

I don't think you are looking at it from the perspective of someone born and raised in The Federation. Believing in goody two shoes gobble-de-gook.

Look at what Picard did in The Pegasus episode. After the Romulans trapped his ship inside an asteroid he turned off the cloaking device and told them about it. I wanted to shoot him in the head. I would have left some photon torpedoes inside the asteroid to explode on a time delay after I'd left. Let the Romulans think I had self destructed the ship rather than let them have it. Of course if the Romulan ship was damaged or destroyed in the process.....OH WELL.

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

As a Bush-Cheney supporter,

We need to have you kidnapped and tortured by Cardassians.

Or, you know, not, since that kind of behavior is just as much a human rights violation as torturing detainees in Guantanamo, and joking about torturing people whose political opinions you disagree with is just disgusting.

Give me a break. Have you noticed that Cardassians are fictitious?

psik

 

[Kira Nerys]

No different from Bush-Cheney. Sisko's actions soiled his honor and honor of the Federation
No more additional comment from me.

 

[Darth_Pazuzu]

I chose the second option, not because I believed that Sisko's actions were necessarily heroic, but under the circumstances they were necessary. I'm willing to bet that many leaders throughout history have had to make similar decisions, only much harder.

(I seem to remember in the Babylon 5 episode In The Shadow Of Z'ha'dum, Captain Sheridan talks to Zack Allan about a very hard choice that supposedly weighed heavily on Winston Churchill during World War II, something about having to let many innocent people die in order not to reveal that they were able to break Nazi codes, or something like that.)

 

[psikeyhackr]

(I seem to remember in the Babylon 5 episode In The Shadow Of Z'ha'dum, Captain Sheridan talks to Zack Allan about a very hard choice that supposedly weighed heavily on Winston Churchill during World War II, something about having to let many innocent people die in order not to reveal that they were able to break Nazi codes, or something like that.)

Allowing the city of Coventry to be bombed without warning them even though he knew it was coming. Warning them would have tipped the Germans off that their ENIGMA code had been broken.

Sisko's decision was trivial compared to that. The worst that could happen was that the Romulan would catch him. Which he did. But Garak fixed that. Garak was the hero of that story.

Brooks did a good job of playing the wimpy Federation officer with a conscience. Drink some root beer Sisko, you'll feel better in the morning.

psik

 

[Cyke101]

Bush/Cheney's actions were simply dirty, and totally unjustified & unnecessary.

As such, the wording of the Poll is flawed. It is possible that the Sisko's actions were wrong despite having a noble purpose behind them, but no way they could in any way be as wrong as Bush/Cheney's actions which had no purpose behind them (other than perhaps, trading blood for oil).

I hear the Taliban is gaining strength in Afghanistan, too.

It makes me wonder how one would react if we knew, back in Dec. 2001, that in 2008 the Taliban was coming back, Osama Bin Laden was still free, and Afghanistan was getting worse.

Or, let's put this in Trek terms: it's like attacking the Gorn because the Dominion invaded DS9

 

[THE_FETT]

The real question is...would you do the same thing?

Well, seeing as how I'm not a murderer, no, I definitely would not do the same thing as Sisko. Terrible officer, and terrible human. I like to imagine that episode never actually happened.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I chose the second option, not because I believed that Sisko's actions were necessarily heroic, but under the circumstances they were necessary. I'm willing to bet that many leaders throughout history have had to make similar decisions, only much harder.

That was my reasoning as well.

I'm not sure that the choices are worded properly...

 

[Sci]

The real question is...would you do the same thing?

Well, seeing as how I'm not a murderer, no, I definitely would not do the same thing as Sisko. Terrible officer, and terrible human. I like to imagine that episode never actually happened.

He's a terrible officer and a terrible human being for taking an action that saved the Federation?

Tell me, how do you feel about Winston Churchill, then? Or Franklin Roosevelt, who may have known that Pearl Harbor was coming but allowed it to happen because he knew there was no other way to motivate Americans en masse to go to war with the Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Italy, and the Greater German Empire?

 

[THE_FETT]

He's a terrible officer and a terrible human being for taking an action that saved the Federation?

No, he's a terrible officer and human being because he's a confessed murderer.

Tell me, how do you feel about Winston Churchill, then? Or Franklin Roosevelt, who may have known that Pearl Harbor was coming but allowed it to happen because he knew there was no other way to motivate Americans en masse to go to war with the Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Italy, and the Greater German Empire?

Well, if they're confessed murderers, then they're pathetic excuses for human beings. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that murder of innocents is justifiable for any reason.

 

[Damask]

No, he's a terrible officer and human being because he's a confessed murderer.

No he's an accessory to murder. He never said he was a murderer.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

As someone said he saved not only the federation but the Romulan empire as well.

Comparasons to GWB are not comparing like with like.
In the case of GWB the existance of, and freedom of, the USA and it's people are not under threat, in the case of the Dominion war they were, when the very existance of your home as you know it and your entire way of life is at risk extreme measures are nessicary.

Also Sisko did not:
-Imprison people without trial
-Set up torture prisons in the Klingon empire to avoid Federation torture laws
-Monitor Federation citizens communcations illegally
-Invade and occupy a world saying it was in legue with the dominion when there was no such connection and he knew it

So really GWB comarasons are a bit mad.

Two deaths and a guilty concince are a small price to pay for the freedom of trillions of people

 

[PhoenixIreland]

The real question is...would you do the same thing?

Well, seeing as how I'm not a murderer, no, I definitely would not do the same thing as Sisko. Terrible officer, and terrible human. I like to imagine that episode never actually happened.

He's a terrible officer and a terrible human being for taking an action that saved the Federation?

Tell me, how do you feel about Winston Churchill, then? Or Franklin Roosevelt, who may have known that Pearl Harbor was coming but allowed it to happen because he knew there was no other way to motivate Americans en masse to go to war with the Empire of Japan, Kingdom of Italy, and the Greater German Empire?

Even with WWII some actions are still debated like the use of nuclear weapons

 

[Caleuche]

Been a while since I've seen the episode, but what I remember Sisko didn't plan to kill the Romulan Senator, just deceive him. It was Garak who killed the senator without Siskos prior knowledge. In which case Sisko is different from Bush simply because Bush planned what would happen and therefore knew in advance what would occur. Sisko had the surprise betrayal of Garak actions thrust upon him and had to learn to live with them.

 

[THE_FETT]

Sisko didn't plan to kill anyone, sure. And the episode would've been brilliant had they ended it properly. But once Sisko has been given full knowledge of what happened, he openly admits that he would do it again. In other words, he openly confesses that he would "request" the murder of innocent people. The evidence is so damning that he deletes the log entry. Deplorable. The man's a villain.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

For a person who bemoans Sisko being a villain and a murderer and a terrible human being, you certainly have no qualms about using a person who is also a villain and a murderer in your username and signature...

 

[THE_FETT]

Everyone knows the Fett is a ruthless bounty hunter with loyalties to no man. But this is a point of genre and character. Star Trek isn't about captains who break their oaths to Starfleet, disregard the ideology they're supposed to uphold, and condone murder of innocents. It just ain't. Now, I like DS9 as much as the next guy, but I'm calling a spade a spade.