So, would the Dominion War have been lost with Picard in Sisko's shoes?

[Longinus]

If they hadn't, its not impossible to imagine even more virulent and genocidal attacks engineered by Sec.31. The Dominion War caused them to show their hand in ways that probably hadn't in over a century, and it was pretty clear they weren't going to allow anything to cause the Federation to lose. They'd seen the Bashir's augment group's mathematical outcomes, knowing those were predicated on the Federation behaving like the federation. Sec.31 doesn't behave like that. The founder had to realize she was up against a fist inside a pretty velvet glove. She could not win.

And this is why DS9 sucks. It basically calls the Federation a lie; the victory requires abandoning the morals. In TNG this would not have happened. The victory would have been won by rejecting S31, and gaining the respect and trust of your enemies. If the Founders could not have been reasoned with, then it would have been about making their subject races to realise that they don't need to be slaves.

 

[XCV330]

And this is why DS9 sucks. It basically calls the Federation a lie; the victory requires abandoning the morals. In TNG this would not have happened. The victory would have been won by rejecting S31, and gaining the respect and trust of your enemies. If the Founders could not have been reasoned with, then it would have been about making their subject races to realise that they don't need to be slaves.

All peace comes from the barrel of a gun, or the threat thereof. All law and order is maintained by the threat of penalty and violence. We sugarcoat it and try not to think about it, but its always there. DS9 was realistic about it by putting the Federation in a situation where it could not look away from that truth. That's why DS9 is awesome.

 

[Longinus]

All peace comes from the barrel of a gun, or the threat thereof. All law and order is maintained by the threat of penalty and violence. We sugarcoat it and try not to think about it, but its always there. DS9 was realistic about it by putting the Federation in a situation where it could not look away from that truth. That's why DS9 is awesome.

You say realistic, I say pessimistic. It basically abandoned the founding principles of Star Trek. I have no need for Star Trek that cannot be optimistic.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Why do you require a con man do create a realistic holographic forgery? Literally all you need to do is walk into the holodeck and say "computer, create a holographic Gul Dukat"....

Because the conman knows how to make the program look authentically Cardassian, and the Federation computer doesn't.

Not that the conman actually came through, of course.

 

[Riker'sMailbox]

And this is why DS9 sucks. It basically calls the Federation a lie; the victory requires abandoning the morals. In TNG this would not have happened. The victory would have been won by rejecting S31, and gaining the respect and trust of your enemies. If the Founders could not have been reasoned with, then it would have been about making their subject races to realise that they don't need to be slaves.

I disagree that it calls the Federation a lie. It just exposed that there is a price to pay for the utopia of the Federation. The ideals of the Federation do not keep the Fed from engaging in wars, but what happens when the opponent does not play by the rules of the Fed? We see a real world example of this with terrorism. There are rules of war, rules of conduct set forth by the governments of those armies. Terrorists do not recognize they rules, nor do they play by them. So, when fighting a terrorist, one can either bend the rules to even the field, or stick a moral code that doesn't exist for the terrorists.

Did you ever see 'A Few Good Men'? I think Sisko understood this in a way Picard never could.

"Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

I think the Star Trek universe is better for having both Picard and Sisko. Picard for being the idealist, the dreamer, the great negotiator and Sisko for being the the realist and realizing that sometimes loosening your moral belt is worth it to save billions of lives.

 

[Artoo Atari]

If gaining the trust and respect of enemies is the only way Starfleet can win battles and defend the Quadrant without sacrificing the morality of the Federation, then why do Starfleet starships have weapons? If that is the case, starships should be firing Shuttlepods full of counselors and negotiators at adversaries instead of torpedoes.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

And this is why DS9 sucks. It basically calls the Federation a lie; the victory requires abandoning the morals

No, because it still requires truth-telling (Bashir) and the ability to convince people (namely Odo) that there is still a general good in spite of the flaws.

 

[Longinus]

I disagree that it calls the Federation a lie. It just exposed that there is a price to pay for the utopia of the Federation. The ideals of the Federation do not keep the Fed from engaging in wars, but what happens when the opponent does not play by the rules of the Fed? We see a real world example of this with terrorism. There are rules of war, rules of conduct set forth by the governments of those armies. Terrorists do not recognize they rules, nor do they play by them. So, when fighting a terrorist, one can either bend the rules to even the field, or stick a moral code that doesn't exist for the terrorists.

Absolutely valid comparison, this is indeed a discussion that applies to the real world as well, and thus more important and bigger than this TV show. Torturing terrorists was always wrong, you cannot sink on the level of your enemies. If you cannot win without sacrificing your values, then you do not deserve to win. This is how dystopias start. You start demolishing the foundation bit by bit, always for 'a good reason.' I am sure the Founders had similarly 'good reasons' for running the Dominion the way they did.

"You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose!"
-Jean-Luc Picard

 

[Longinus]

If gaining the trust and respect of enemies is the only way Starfleet can win battles and defend the Quadrant without sacrificing the morality of the Federation, then why do Starfleet starships have weapons? If that is the case, starships should be firing Shuttlepods full of counselors and negotiators at adversaries instead of torpedoes.

Self defence is fine. But we are talking about genocide of entire species (the Founders) and murdering completely unconnected outsiders (Vreenak and his crew.)

Furthermore it is about what sort of story you want to tell. Whilst there is nothing morally wrong about the Federation winning a defensive war by strength of arms, it is not a very Star Trek story.

 

[at Quark's]

So basically we are talking about the difference between how things ideally should be, and how they are in our world today and the admission that some ugly truths of life will probably never change, not even in a utopia.

Perhaps an analogy can be drawn with Kirk's statement: "I don't believe in a no-win scenario", which some people see as a brilliant line, whereas others, myself included, see it as balderdash, since sometimes life simply hands you no-win scenarios without a hack you can escape with. Everyone who has lost a loved one to a terminal and incurable disease, for example, knows that. The best you can hope for in such a situation is finding a graceful way to deal with the loss.

It seems there is a similar split here over the statement "I don't believe in scenarios that can't be won without resorting to dirty underhanded tactics".

"You cannot explain away a wantonly immoral act because you think it is connected to some higher purpose!"
-Jean-Luc Picard

If only someone had thrown back that line to his head that time he decided the Prime Directive dictated that not a single Boraalan could be saved (Homeward)....

 

[Nyotarules]

You say realistic, I say pessimistic. It basically abandoned the founding principles of Star Trek. I have no need for Star Trek that cannot be optimistic.

You mean the same prinicples that Kirk displayed when he was prepared to blow up a planet or when he armed the other side of a war with the Klingons?

But the Founder surrendered in order to immediately have access to the cure.

Ending the war.

No, the founder surrendered because Odo linked with her and said he would join the Great Link. That is all that mattered to the Founder, the great link, not even the war mattered to her.

I think the Star Trek universe is better for having both Picard and Sisko. Picard for being the idealist, the dreamer, the great negotiator and Sisko for being the the realist and realizing that sometimes loosening your moral belt is worth it to save billions of lives.

As Sisko said it is easy to be a saint in Paradise, (or from the sofa in front the tv)

 

[XCV330]

You say realistic, I say pessimistic. It basically abandoned the founding principles of Star Trek. I have no need for Star Trek that cannot be optimistic.

How do you feel about General Order 24

 

[Longinus]

How do you feel about General Order 24

I feel that as usual, Kirk was bluffing.

 

[XCV330]

I feel that as usual, Kirk was bluffing.

Garth knew about the order, also. It means Starfleet did have this order.

 

[Longinus]

Garth knew about the order, also. It means Starfleet did have this order.

I'm sure they have it. They probably have all sorts of emergency general orders that are rarely, if ever, used. USA has war plans in case Canada attacks.

In any case, Kirk may have threatened to nuke a world, but he actually didn't do it. (He also promised to kill Maltz.) If he had, I would certainly feel differently about him. In DS9 they did nuke the Founder homeworld, and Sisko did commit a conspiracy to murder a foreign diplomat.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I feel that as usual, Kirk was bluffing.

A pet theory that makes you feel better.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

n DS9 they did nuke the Founder homeworld,

This confusion of both facts and episodes reveals how your arguments are really just trying to agitate us.

 

[Riker'sMailbox]

I'm sure they have it. They probably have all sorts of emergency general orders that are rarely, if ever, used. USA has war plans in case Canada attacks.

In any case, Kirk may have threatened to nuke a world, but he actually didn't do it. (He also promised to kill Maltz.) If he had, I would certainly feel differently about him. In DS9 they did nuke the Founder homeworld, and Sisko did commit a conspiracy to murder a foreign diplomat.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but the Founders had moved homeworlds to a new location prior to the Battle of the Omicron Nebula, which was not a Federation battle. It was the super secret alliance of Romulan and Cardassians that engaged in this battle, neither of which are Federation members.

 

[Longinus]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but the Founders had moved homeworlds to a new location prior to the Battle of the Omicron Nebula, which was not a Federation battle. It was the super secret alliance of Romulan and Cardassians that engaged in this battle, neither of which are Federation members.

Sure, but they were Federation allies and no one knew that the Founders had moved. And regardless, it was the Federation people who infected the Founders with a deathly virus that would have resulted the extinction of the species and it was a Sisko who conspired to murder Vreenak and draw Rumulans in the war.

It is not really about details, it is about the overall narrative. The story they wanted to tell in DS9 was that it takes immoral tactics to win a war. I didn't like that. I would have preferred a story where it ultimately would have been the Federation commitment to their ideals which would have won the day. Showing that they were better than the Dominion, preferably by showing to the Jem'Hadar and even the Vorta that they didn't need to be slaves, that there was a better way.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

The story they wanted to tell in DS9 was that it takes immoral tactics to win a war.

That's a gross oversimplification. They wanted to explore the nooks and crannies of the assumptions that Star Trek was built on by putting them through a bunch of ideas, both real and fictional, from World War 2. DS9 maybe scuffed them up a little, but they largely come out intact.