The Federation Must Die.

[Paradon]

No, offense! But your post really is the one born out of ignorance.

The Al Quada was created because of U.S. meddling with foreign politics. We help trained terrorists to fight a war against the Soviet invasion and now they've turned against us and use the training we taught them to commit terrorist attacks against the U.S. and other western nations. This is what the CIA calls a blow back. The U.S. should have known better than to do business or allied themselves with a bunch terrorists and thugs. This is what happened. In Cambodia the U.S. put a thug named Pol Pot in power and back him to fight the communists that were taking over the country. AFter the communist thread was defused Pol Pot his men turned around and killed millions of Cambodians whom he though might challenge him. If you were even suspected of being educated or wore glasses, that's enough for them to hall you away, tortured you and then killed you. This is what happened when you interfere in foreign politics. There's no easy quick fix and it is irresponsible. And what happened if the people in those countries won't surrender and refuse to listen? ARe you going to shoot at them until they do? Look at Vietnam War.

 

[jgalley]

I know Al Quada wasn't the best example, but served to prove my point.

so i'll dumb it down so you can understand.

Let's say the "Paradon" form over in...Italy. They attack..Poland..for atrocities committed in a (this is made-up remember) war against the U.S. and Italy. The "Paradon" don't like the peace that was formed with the U.S. So "Paradon" continue to attack and kill Poland regardless of the peace treaties. Several U.S. Generals, Colonels, and "normal" soldiers defect from the U.S. Armed Forced and join "Paradon" HELPING them attack and kill Poland military/government/citizens. You're actually saying that the U.S. has NO RESPONSIBILITY to stop their ex-soldiers..that are capable of doing what they're doing BECAUSE OF the TRAINING they RECEIVED in the U.S. AND carry U.S. Military secrets since this "Paradon" group doesn't actually attack the U.S.?

it's poorly thought-out. false. and an idiotic stand-point. fact.

The Federation going after the Maquis is similar to this. They ARE responsible for the defectors training and abilities..tactics...know-how..etc. Not to mention they have a PEACE TREATY with the Card's.

So pick apart my example if that's all you can (obviously) do. because even that holds no merit. As whether my Al Quada example (or even the above one) is off...the POINT is valid and accurate.

and again it's "cool" to criticize the "good guys" isn't it? fight the power brother!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And that right there is a very disturbing thing: that the Federation counts conquerors like the Klingons as its allies. That to me proves that the Federation, for all its ideals, is almost as pragmatic in practice as the Cardassian Union.

the Klingon Empire is a most great and honourable Empire.

You gotta be kidding me! Klingons are bigger hypocrites than humans, even. DS9 covered this pretty well in the latter S7 eps. Klingons are a highly varied bunch, ranging from truly honorable guys like Martok to dishonorable weasels like the Duras gang to out and out psychos like Gowron.

Klingon blather about honor and courage is comparable to Starfleet blather about Federation values: take it with a cargo-bay full of salt.

And the Klingon comment about the Federation being a human club is just self-serving baloney. For starters, what do Klingons know about the Federation? Most likely, that was a comment about Starfleet, the part of the Federation Klingons are most likely to encounter on a regular basis. Starfleet definitely is skewed human, but that may just signify that Earthers are the suckers of the Federation, taking all the risk while everyone else gets largely a free ride.

One day, it would indeed be interesting if the Franchise was able to take a look at a compelling counterpart to the Federation, in the sense of there being another multi-species democracy out there that would have its own set of ideas as to how to go about their business; but finding the right place for such a story to be told would be the real trick.

Exactly the point I was making: the writers never had the courage to show what the Federation looked like in comparison to other "white hats." We only saw them compared to tyrants and outright bigots, so of course the conclusion people draw from that--before looking deeper--is that the Federation is a perfect knight in shining armor. Credible opposition would reveal the ugly side fast.

I think the implication is, when Starfleet encounters a white-hat culture, it swiftly incorporates them into the Federation, which after all is a good deal: you get your space defense handled for you, while not having your internal affairs interfered with.

That is, assuming your culture lines up pretty well with the Federation - the Bajorans are a good example, their religious hierarchy may suffer from some degree of corruption, but as long as there's no blatant social injustice happening, they can be a Fed world. If your culture is a poor fit for Fed values, the match won't work, but then you aren't a white hat, are you? Or, here's a great example of what I mean:

We know from "Accession" (DS9) that the Federation Charter bans caste-based discrimination. If a planetary state wants to become a Federation Member State, they have to abolish it. So when the Republic of Bajor briefly instituted caste-based discrimination, its admission to the Federation was endangered.

But the Federation did not actually impose its morals on Bajor. They didn't threaten to invade, nor even to impose economic sanctions. What they did say was, in effect, "Bajor has the right to run its society as it wants. But if Bajor wants to become part of our society, then it needs to conform with our laws. Federation society is constitutionally designed to function a certain way, and no independent society can become part of our society if they violate that way."

 

[Paradon]

I know Al Quada wasn't the best example, but served to prove my point.

so i'll dumb it down so you can understand.

Let's say the "Paradon" form over in...Italy. They attack..Poland..for atrocities committed in a (this is made-up remember) war against the U.S. and Italy. The "Paradon" don't like the peace that was formed with the U.S. So "Paradon" continue to attack and kill Poland regardless of the peace treaties. Several U.S. Generals, Colonels, and "normal" soldiers defect from the U.S. Armed Forced and join "Paradon" HELPING them attack and kill Poland military/government/citizens. You're actually saying that the U.S. has NO RESPONSIBILITY to stop their ex-soldiers..that are capable of doing what they're doing BECAUSE OF the TRAINING they RECEIVED in the U.S. AND carry U.S. Military secrets since this "Paradon" group doesn't actually attack the U.S.?

it's poorly thought-out. false. and an idiotic stand-point. fact.

The Federation going after the Maquis is similar to this. They ARE responsible for the defectors training and abilities..tactics...know-how..etc. Not to mention they have a PEACE TREATY with the Card's.

So pick apart my example if that's all you can (obviously) do. because even that holds no merit. As whether my Al Quada example (or even the above one) is off...the POINT is valid and accurate.

and again it's "cool" to criticize the "good guys" isn't it? fight the power brother!

No, offense! But going after people that left the Federation and chose to stay with the Cardassians is really isn't an option either. They are no longer the responsibility of the Federation. The whole mess was born out of the ignorance of the Federation government thinking they can force people to accept their point of view at their expense.

Anytime you send in military forces into another countries, it pisses the people off to no end. Believe it or not, people in other countries do feel patriotism for their countries and they get pissed off when they see foreign soldiers on their homeland. This is why most countries, especially middle eastern nations, don't like the U.S. They don't give a fuck shit what Americans think. When They see your troops in their countries, it could be seen as an act of war and disrespecting them. The Federation already made enough mess, so they need to fucking stop and shut the fuck up because nobody wants to hear them preaching like they needed to be told how to behave and act...like they can't do anything right. If they think their officers may defect to them, then the Federation need to keep better taps on them.

The problem is: you can't make peace by war. To achieve peace you must earn the other parties respect and trust by open communication and good dialoques. People will repect you if you respect them. The more people you kill, the more pissed off they get. Eveerybody gets pissed off when their love ones die!

 

[Rush Limborg]

Sci, are you a professional writer? You've written so much content in this thread, it could easily make a multi-part article in some publication.

Don't know about Sci--but I myself am a paid writer for a political blog site....



I know that Jack Nicholson is very charismatic, but I do wish that people would remember that the entire point of A Few Good Men is that Nicholson's character is a pathological narcissist who thinks that his position in the United States Marine Corps gives him carte blanche to break the law whenever he wants. He's a character who thinks he's above the law and above morality, not a character to be admired.



I was making a joke... when someone went on about how Sisko is sitting outside paradise (paraphrased). Of course Sisko != Jessup.

Jessup was a very sad case. The front line fighting military have to be very tough and thus go to some extremes to ensure the men will be able to fight successfully without risking the lives of others. He crossed the line, ordering that code red. The loss of investment in him for the military was huge... all because he couldn't see how he was taking things a little too far.

Y'know, my thoughts about Jessep are that, had he been using his mind when hearing about the general incompetence of Santiago, he'd have simply wondered how the heck a guy that sickly got past MARINE basic traning. Then, he'd have confronted that doctor that somehow pronounced the lad completely fit for duty....

The thing about Jessep's speech is--though, as Sci points out, the point of the fims was to condemn his attitude--like Olver Stone's Wall Street, it actually had the opposite effect from the intended one. As you may be aware, Wall Street actually became an inspiration to the "corporate raiders" Stone was trying to condemn--and it became a nice recruiting tool for the Street.

In the case of the speech--approve of Jessep's actions or not, there is something to what he says. Though he uses those words to defend his grave error in judgement (he should have simply busted the kid out of the Corps, with a dishonorable discharge for his sorry conduct)--still, by itself, the speech is a winner.

 

[Sci]

The thing about Jessep's speech is--though, as Sci points out, the point of the fims was to condemn his attitude--like Olver Stone's Wall Street, it actually had the opposite effect from the intended one. As you may be aware, Wall Street actually became an inspiration to the "corporate raiders" Stone was trying to condemn--and it became a nice recruiting tool for the Street.

That's only because some people are bastards.

In the case of the speech--approve of Jessep's actions or not, there is something to what he says.

No, there isn't. Defending the country doesn't give you the right to break the law.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Again, I am separating Jessep's actions from the speech.

His words could easily be spoken by a black-ops agent--that the public can't know the truth, because they couldn't handle it.

Frankly, in the speech, he doesn't mention breaking the law, per se. He mentions doing dark things which some might consider morally wrong--but not necessarily illegal. His actions were illegal, but his speech didn't refer to that.

 

[T'Girl]

No, there isn't. Defending the country doesn't give you the right to break the law.

So if obeying the law result in the country ceasing to exist, that preferable to breaking the law?

You're kidding right?

 

[Paradon]

No, there isn't. Defending the country doesn't give you the right to break the law.

So if obeying the law result in the country ceasing to exist, that preferable to breaking the law?

You're kidding right?

There's more than one ways to do things depending on what kind of results you are hoping for... Before anyone starts acting like a bunch of pigheaded morons, try to do the right thing. You always have choices, so pick the best one according to the situation. Don't think...I can't! If that's how you think you always have to break the laws when you are in the hot seat, then that's what you will always do, and the crime rate probably will increase by 200%. [chuckle] There are more than ways to do things. Think before you say and do something.

 

[Arpy]

The public can't handle the truth? Nonsense. Enlighten them. ...That's the same crap they used to say about why the American for of government wouldn't work. The world's adjusted fine to democracy. I think that it'd adjust equally well to greater openness.

And Jessup was an asshole - in word and action. He had options in dealing with Santiago, but he chose instead to do something dangerous, and it bit him in the ass. Instead of owning up to his actions he tried to conceal them.

...Harrumph, and why not try to when you have people arguing for secrecy at the expense of justice? Everyone wants to be a gangsta these days.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The public can't handle the truth? Nonsense. Enlighten them. ...The world's adjusted fine to democracy. I think that it'd adjust equally well to greater openness.

Indeed? Well, then, what's the point of clandestine operations in the first place, eh? We don't need secrecy at all--of course not! Inform the people of everything our intel forces are doing:

"Well, we'd just like to inform all the people that we've sent our agents over to gain intelligence on a potentially hostile power--and who cares that our enemies are watching the same news outlets the people are! Who cares that such necessary and proper operations require secrecy in order to work? Who cares that, in order to ensure that things go according to plan, the less people know, the better!"

 

[Admiral Shran]

Don't know about Sci--but I myself am a paid writer for a political blog site....

No kidding? Which one? I wouldn't mind giving it a read.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Prepare to be PM'd.

 

[Arpy]

"Well, we'd just like to inform all the people that we've sent our agents over to gain intelligence on a potentially hostile power--and who cares that our enemies are watching the same news outlets the people are! Who cares that such necessary and proper operations require secrecy in order to work? Who cares that, in order to ensure that things go according to plan, the less people know, the better!"

Right, because that's exactly what I'm talking about. Except you forgot the part about publishing Seal Team 6's names and home addresses the day before theyre sent out.

I stand by my post.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^So, do you admit that secrecy--from the public--is often necessary, for the reasons I stated?

 

[Sci]

^If by consistency, I mean "lack of hypocrisy"--and I do--of course!

If you don't practice what you preach--it means that, subconciously (at the very least), you don't take what you preach seriously.

I dunno. I think there's room for saying that a given principle is true and should be held to 99% of the time, but that in rare circumstances the rule should be nullified, but in also acknowledging that that 1% of the time doesn't make ignoring it the other 99% of the time okay or make those who do ignore that rule whenever they feel like it more honest than those who acknowledge some caveats 1% of the time.

But this is such a broad topic that it's almost useless to speak of.

As for the rest of your refutation--I think the central element of our disagreement comes from this:

No, institutional practices create the foundations for cultural problems. And institutional practices tend to reflect preexisting cultural mindsets -- it becomes a vicious circle.

Our disagreement is where the circular path begins. You think the foundations--and therefore, the solutions--for cultural problems are found in the institutions--I think it is other way around. As you yourself admit, here: "Iinstitutional practices tend to reflect preexisting cultural mindsets."

Yes, but I also think that cultural mindsets are initially created by institutional practices.

The best example is racism. Racism within the English nation existed to an extent, but it wasn't the all-encompassing thing it became in the English colonies until the arrival of African slaves. Upon the institution of slavery being established in the English colonies in North America, the wealthy elites began deliberately inculcating the lower European classes in the colonies with a sense of contempt for, and superiority to, Africans. By creating animosity between the enslaved Africans and the lower-class English, the elite were able to divide them and prevent them from uniting to threaten the elites' power over colonial society.

That done, the system of racist thought and feelings they inculcated took on a life of its own -- to the point where racism has long outlasted slavery itself, and then to the point where that racism continues to influence official institutions, so that, say, today, we have a system where police are much more hostile towards, and the judicial system more likely to go harder on, African Americans than European Americans for the same crimes.

The institution creates the cultural mindset, which then influences the institution. The only way to break the cycle is to force institutions to change, so that they can then start to influence the culture again.

Then I really don't know what Federation you've been watching. I've been watching a Federation that reached out the hand of friendship to its mortal enemies when they were in need; that was willing to admit that the foundation of its society, warp drive, was destroying space-time and to work to fix it; that has institutionally banned racism and discrimination, even when it would be easy to discriminate. The Federation looks to me like a much more self-reflective, self-correcting culture than any that exists today.

Again, nonsense. If Federation institutions were that inflexible, the Khitomer Accords would never have happened; the Federation wouldn't have sent the Enterprise to try to negotiate lasting peace with the Romulans in NEM; Federation Admirals wouldn't have refused to drink to the deaths on Cardassia at the end of the Dominion War; the Federation Council wouldn't have been willing to admit Kirk's saving the Earth in ST4 as mitigating circumstances in his trial. The Federation is extremely flexible as an institution.



I think you're misunderstanding what I was saying. When I asserted that the institutions of the Federation fail to take a hard look at the problems of society--I am referring to its look at internal bigotry. After all--it failed to anticipate Cartwright's conspiracy to destroy the peace talks

But that conspiracy failed, and it failed because other Federation bigots -- Kirk, McCoy, and the Enterprise crew -- felt strongly enough about Federation values like equality that they were willing to engage in self-examination, and to therefore recognize that they had been wrong and that other bigots needed to be stopped.

Yes, the Federation government failed to foresee the development of a treasonous movement in its Starfleet. But the Federation cultural mindset of equality and self-examination was so thoroughly inculcated into most Federates that they were able to recognize where they had been wrong in their bigotries and to work to overcome that treasonous plot. If anything, Kirk and Co's behavior in ST6 proves my point -- that Federation culture displays a remarkable capacity for self-reflection and therefore adjustment.

--and it failed to anticipate the consequences of the treaties with the Cardassians.

By the same token, wouldn't the relative ease with which Starfleet accepted Voyager's Maquis crewmembers point to, again, the Federation being willing to engage in self-reflection and adjust itself when it realizes it's been wrong?

Hell, according to VOY's "Endgame," the Federation of the alternate future went from not recognizing that sentient holo-programs like the EMH were even a form of life to recognizing in them full equality and equal citizenship within just a few decades of the first sentient holo-program being created. That's huge. It took America four hundred years to go from the arrival of the first Africans to granting them full equality; the Federation made that same journey with sentient holo-programs in less than half a century. That indicates an amazing capacity for Federation social change, self-reflection, and adaptability.

But I'm curious: has the Federation admitted to being wrong on the Maquis issue--which had arisen due to, not Cardassian politics--but the Federation's own arrogantly innocent misconceptions?

1. The Maquis issue arose both because of Federation blindness towards the Federation colonists' attitudes and because of Cardassian politics. If the Cardassians hadn't begun arming their colonists covertly to let them attack Federation colonists in the DMZ, the Maquis would not have arisen.

2. It's hard to suss out the UFP government's attitude towards the Maquis post-Dominion War from the canon. We know that the Federation seems to have accepted Voyager's Maquis crewmembers as heroes alongside its Starfleet crew. We know that the Federation President who presided over the rise of the Maquis, Jaresh-Inyo, was out of office by the last year of the Dominion War. And we know that there were almost no Maquis left once the Cardassian Union was annexed by the Dominion, because Jem'Hadar forces hunted them down and slaughtered them.

If we broaden our horizons to include the novels, Voyager's Maquis crew members were given full pardons and allowed to join Starfleet if they wanted. And of course we know that President Min Zife replaced President Jaresh-Inyo, and that Zife was much more militant than Jaresh-Inyo. So while we never got a formal statement, the impression I got was very much that the Federation government has completely changed its position on the Maquis and regrets its actions under Jaresh-Inyo.

^Again, I am separating Jessep's actions from the speech.

You can't separate his actions from his speech. They're irrevocably interwoven. The guy ordered an illegal assault upon one of his subordinates that led to his death, and then tried to cover it up, and then tried to claim that the fact that he happens to be an officer in the Armed Forces gives him the right to ignore both the law and morality. It's pure narcissism through and through.

No, there isn't. Defending the country doesn't give you the right to break the law.

So if obeying the law result in the country ceasing to exist, that preferable to breaking the law?

You're kidding right?

There is no law that if obeyed would cause the country to cease to exist.

Well, maybe except that "the President can't tell the Treasury Department to borrow money without Congress's permission" thing.

But I digress. A soldier obeying the law will not cause the country to cease to exist, and claiming such is just absurd.

The public can't handle the truth? Nonsense. Enlighten them. ...The world's adjusted fine to democracy. I think that it'd adjust equally well to greater openness.

Indeed? Well, then, what's the point of clandestine operations in the first place, eh? We don't need secrecy at all--of course not!

I for one think that there are some circumstances under which we need clandestine operations, but I also think that governments are often far, far, far, far too quick to resort to them, and that they should not be a primary recourse. I also think that there's a huge difference between saying you have clandestine operations and saying that the government and/or military should be able to do whatever they want because they "defend" us.

 

[T'Girl]

No, there isn't. Defending the country doesn't give you the right to break the law.

So if obeying the law result in the country ceasing to exist, that preferable to breaking the law?

There is no law that if obeyed would cause the country to cease to exist.

One of the best examples of what I was referring to is this. In 1925, sixteen of the world's major nations signed the Geneva Protocol Treaty, they pledging never to use poison gas in warfare again. Britain was one of those nations. During the second world war, if the German army obtained a beachhead on the British coast, part of the response plan was to use poison gas (likely mustard gas) on the Dover coast and if necessary, inland on the British countryside.

Because national survival trumps law.

Well, maybe except that "the President can't tell the Treasury Department to borrow money without Congress's permission" thing.

Yeah, that whole "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," thing really seemed to get in the current President way, huh?

 

[Sci]

So if obeying the law result in the country ceasing to exist, that preferable to breaking the law?

There is no law that if obeyed would cause the country to cease to exist.

One of the best examples of what I was referring to is this. In 1925, sixteen of the world's major nations signed the Geneva Protocol Treaty, they pledging never to use poison gas in warfare again. Britain was one of those nations. During the second world war, if the German army obtained a beachhead on the British coast, part of the response plan was to use poison gas (likely mustard gas) on the Dover coast and if necessary, inland on the British countryside.

Because national survival trumps law.

And would using mustard gas really have been necessary to defend Great Britain?

Well, maybe except that "the President can't tell the Treasury Department to borrow money without Congress's permission" thing.

Yeah, that whole "to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," thing really seemed to get in the current President way, huh?

I for one am not convinced that the law limiting the amount of debt the U.S. may incur is itself consistent with the Constitution.