That doesn't mean anything. Unless we saw something occurring back in the 2350s or whatever.
The Maquis - where do you stand?
- Thread starter PTRACER
- Start date
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
Bullfrak it doesn't!
The entire BASIS for the Maquis' formation was the fact that the Cardassian govt was shipping weapons to it's colonists who were using them to attack Federation colonists and Starfleet wasn't doing SQUAT about it!
Squat? Wasn't it Sisko and co, all Starfleet officers (with the assistance of Dukat!), that caught the Cardassians red-handed? Forcing the Cardassian govt to acknowledge weapons shipments were taking place? That was the time to press the advantage, atempt a treaty revision or something! Instead, the Maquis decided to continue their private little war.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
But the federation did not 'press its advantage'.
Why? Because the federation had no interest to. The maquis continuing to defend the colonists against cardassian attacks would not have weakened the federation's position in the least - you see, both cardassians and federation citizens were fighting; plus, the cardassian government supplied its side (and was forced to admit it), unlike the federation.
The federation's negociating position was stronger than ever. But the federation didn't care about its citizens living in the DMZ, was NOT interested in improving their situation. It was more than willing to use them and dispose of them for political capital.
And what happened next? The federation treated the DMZ federation colonists (and the maquis minority) like subhuman specimens. Their rights as federation citizens were blatantly violated - again and again: killing maquis who posed no threat without trial, poisoning entire federation colonies.
By contrast, there was not a single mention of the federation (or the cardassians) acting against the cardassian colonists who first attacked the federation citizens.
The federation's betrayal culminated in the federation doing nothing, just watching while hundreds of thousands of its citizens were being massacred - GENOCIDE.
It's difficult to imagine the Maquis operating for any length of time without material support from inside the Federation, the Vulcan lady purchasing munitions from Quark would be an example of this support.
Government support no, Federation support yes.
The DMZ existed on both sides of the established border and I'm sure the Federation cared very deeply for it's citizens living peaceful on the Federation side.
Like the right to engage in armed rebellion. The right to support the same. The right to engage is piracy against civilian shipping. And let's not forget their right to kidnap just anybody they wanted to.
Name a single Maquis who was killed after surrendering to Federation juridiction. Tom Paris certainly wasn't kill, it's extremely unlikely even Eddington was killed and if he was it would have been after a trial.
And which FEDERATION colony was poisoned?
You might want to look up this word, I don't think you actual know what it means.
No offense, ProtoAvatar, but you really don't make your points any stronger by overusing bold letters, caps lock and bombastic words.
For any real peace negotiations to have taken place and suceeded, the colonists themselves, including the Maquis, had to show the will to take part. Surely the Maquis continuing their attacks against the Cardassians couldn't have helped the Federation's negotiating position. (I hate to again bring up real world examples, but it's kind of like Hamas firing rockets into Israel surely doesn't help the Palestinians in their negotiations with Israel)
It forced the Central Command to stop shipping weapons and institute a system of inspections. Every ship entering the DMZ from both sides was supposedly searched from now on.
For any real peace negotiations to have taken place and suceeded, the colonists themselves, including the Maquis, had to show the will to take part. Surely the Maquis continuing their attacks against the Cardassians couldn't have helped the Federation's negotiating position. (I hate to again bring up real world examples, but it's kind of like Hamas firing rockets into Israel surely doesn't help the Palestinians in their negotiations with Israel)
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
T'Girl
You are the one confused about the significance of the word GENOCIDE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
You also need to wach 'for the uniform' and see how Sisko poisoned a federation colony - with impunity.
And you misunderstood the political situation of the DMZ. It's neutral territory between the cardassian and federation space. It's 'demilitarised' because no side, in theory, has the right to send troops in this zone - but both the cardassians and the federation sent troops to hunt down the maquis; and the other side didn't object.
Dorvan V has a completely different situation - it's in strictly cardassian territory (beyond the DMZ), which is why its colonists renounced federation citizenship.
Fundamental rights of its citizens the federation blatantly violated:
The right to be protected against agression, the right to due trial (Sisko had no problem killing in cold blood maquis who posed no threat - so much for the federation never killing maquis), the right to be protected against genocide, etc.
Get this through your head, T'Girl - citizens NEVER lose these rights - people who said 'no' to their government have these rights; even convicted criminals have these rights.
"the Federation cared very deeply for it's citizens living peaceful on the Federation side."?
What a joke. That's why the federation treated them like disposable trash. That's why it did nothing to protect these citizens while the dominion comitted GENOCIDE.
neozeks
IF the federation wanted to negociate a new treaty, with better conditions for the DMZ colonists, it was in a strong position to do so after 'the maquis':
The federation could claim moral superiority over the cardassians! - the whole the cardassians sponsored its bullies.
The maquis existed? So did the cardassian terrorists! No disadvantage for either side.
The federation WAS NOT INTERESTED in improving the life of its DMZ colonists.
And as long as cardassian terrorists attacked the federation colonists and starfleet did nothing, renouncing the maquis would have been suicide for these colonists.
And neozeks, the gravity, the sheer scale of the federation's betrayal toward its DMZ colonists necessitates "bold letters, caps lock and bombastic words." - which is why I use them.
You are the one confused about the significance of the word GENOCIDE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide
You also need to wach 'for the uniform' and see how Sisko poisoned a federation colony - with impunity.
And you misunderstood the political situation of the DMZ. It's neutral territory between the cardassian and federation space. It's 'demilitarised' because no side, in theory, has the right to send troops in this zone - but both the cardassians and the federation sent troops to hunt down the maquis; and the other side didn't object.
Dorvan V has a completely different situation - it's in strictly cardassian territory (beyond the DMZ), which is why its colonists renounced federation citizenship.
Fundamental rights of its citizens the federation blatantly violated:
The right to be protected against agression, the right to due trial (Sisko had no problem killing in cold blood maquis who posed no threat - so much for the federation never killing maquis), the right to be protected against genocide, etc.
Get this through your head, T'Girl - citizens NEVER lose these rights - people who said 'no' to their government have these rights; even convicted criminals have these rights.
"the Federation cared very deeply for it's citizens living peaceful on the Federation side."?
What a joke. That's why the federation treated them like disposable trash. That's why it did nothing to protect these citizens while the dominion comitted GENOCIDE.
neozeks
IF the federation wanted to negociate a new treaty, with better conditions for the DMZ colonists, it was in a strong position to do so after 'the maquis':
The federation could claim moral superiority over the cardassians! - the whole the cardassians sponsored its bullies.
The maquis existed? So did the cardassian terrorists! No disadvantage for either side.
The federation WAS NOT INTERESTED in improving the life of its DMZ colonists.
And as long as cardassian terrorists attacked the federation colonists and starfleet did nothing, renouncing the maquis would have been suicide for these colonists.
And neozeks, the gravity, the sheer scale of the federation's betrayal toward its DMZ colonists necessitates "bold letters, caps lock and bombastic words." - which is why I use them.
I agree that was unforgivable (though no one died, the colony just became uninhabitable). I won't try to find any excuses for Sisko.
Nah, I think you're wrong here. The DMZ is not a buffer zone between the UFP and CU territories like say, the Neutral Zone, it's a no-weapons zone stretching along both sides of the border. Numerous times in episodes 'the Federation side of the zone', 'their side of the zone' and such are mentioned (though, again, the writers weren't perfectly consistent about this). As for Dorvan V, it's nowhere clearly established, but I'm pretty sure it's in the DMZ. All the colonies are in the DMZ. At least that's the impression I always got.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
neozeks
About Dorvan V - the TNG episode that deals with it - TNG'journey's end' - establishes that it's deep inside cardassian territory, not inside the DMZ.
This is why the colonists on Dorvan V had to renounce their federation citizenship (also established in the episode), while the colonists from the DMZ colonies kept theirs (established in almost all maquis episodes).
And about the DMZ - in the 'cardassian side' there were more cardassian colonies, while in the 'federation side' there were more federation colonies.
However, both powers were forbidden to deploy military assets in the DMZ (and, probably, there were other restrictionns).
The DMZ was, essentially, a buffer zone, neutral territory.
The 'cardassian side' was cardassian territory, but the cardassians couldn't - as per the treaty - enforce their power; similarly for the federation side.
However, both sides broke the treaty in chasing the maquis (as I said, there was nowhere even a hint that the cardassian terrorists were inconvenienced in the slightest by the federation or their government - almost as if they had the support of both powers
).
About Dorvan V - the TNG episode that deals with it - TNG'journey's end' - establishes that it's deep inside cardassian territory, not inside the DMZ.
This is why the colonists on Dorvan V had to renounce their federation citizenship (also established in the episode), while the colonists from the DMZ colonies kept theirs (established in almost all maquis episodes).
And about the DMZ - in the 'cardassian side' there were more cardassian colonies, while in the 'federation side' there were more federation colonies.
However, both powers were forbidden to deploy military assets in the DMZ (and, probably, there were other restrictionns).
The DMZ was, essentially, a buffer zone, neutral territory.
The 'cardassian side' was cardassian territory, but the cardassians couldn't - as per the treaty - enforce their power; similarly for the federation side.
However, both sides broke the treaty in chasing the maquis (as I said, there was nowhere even a hint that the cardassian terrorists were inconvenienced in the slightest by the federation or their government - almost as if they had the support of both powers
).
Sisko actions at Solosos Three were this. First he gave the maquis one hours notice, advising them to evacuate immediately. Second he directly told Eddington of his plans prior to carrying them out. This was no sneak attack. Sisko didn't want them dead, he wanted them off that world, he wanted the maquis to stop poisoning the worlds of a foreign power.
Why was Sisko not punished for his action? Let see, he captured a major maquis leader, seized all of the maquis biogenic weapons, forced the evacuation of a illegal maquis colony (not a Federation colony), seized multiple transport ships and resettled the displaced colonists. The Federation wanted to resettle those displaced colonists after the treaty was signed, the displaced colonists accomplished nothing in running with the maquis for years. Nothing at all.
Why would Starfleet punish Sisko, at Solosos three no one died, no ones lives were really every placed in danger, the planet will be livable in half a century, maquis was weaken, colonist were where the Federation wanted them to be in the first place. Why punish Sisko?
Neither side objected because they were co-operating.
And nothing said neither side could send forces into their respective DMZ's, the treaty said they could not station forces there, build bases there or have exercises there. Both side could however send forces into their DMZ's, they just couldn't stay there. .
I believe you'll misunderstood what the DMZ is. The DMZ itself is not the border, nor is it "neutral territory between the Cardassian and Federation space." There is nothing "between" their spaces, their spaces meet at a hard border between the two space nations.
There is a DMZ on the Federation's side of the border stretching back into Federation space.
There is a separate DMZ on the Union's side of the border stretching back into Union space.
The prohibition on each space nation applies to them inside their respective DMZ's Obviously neither can cross the border without permission.
Genocide: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.
None of which applies to the maquis, If you want to exterminate an entire people, giving them a chance to evacuate would seem to work against your aims. The maquis are not a people. The maquis are a well armed gang.
There would be colonies far enough back from the border to be outside the DMZ, I don't believe it was ever stated how thick the DMZ was, certainly many lightyears. Dorvan V was on the Union's side of the border, possibly inside their DMZ, although it could have been beyond the DMZ deep inside Union space.
Nope, the episode establishes nothing in this regard. It just says the planet has been settled 20 years ago and has been disputed even before that. It might be in the DMZ, it might not. To me, it seems logical it is near the border, therefore in the DMZ.
I always assumed the restriction was that they couldn't send ships in without the permission of the other side, not that they couldn't send ships at all.
The fact that we haven't seen it doesn't mean nothing was done about them. Well, we did actually see one case. Sisko and Dukat tried to defend a Federation freighter from Cardassian colonists' raiders (but the Maquis got there first).However, both sides broke the treaty in chasing the maquis (as I said, there was nowhere even a hint that the cardassian terrorists were inconvenienced in the slightest by the federation or their government - almost as if they had the support of both powers
From the standpoint that you have put a life's work into making your small patch of land into a living for you and your family. That you feel you've got roots & are looking forward to future generations reaping the benefit of your efforts and building on them. Then no you wouldn't want to be robbed of your stake by the stroke of some remote bureaucrat's pen — you'd be quick enough to take up arms if it was the only way left to preserve your own. Both now & in Trek it seems the only way ordinary people get paid any heed at all is through Direct Action whether violent or non-violent. Ghandi won India by non-violence, Collins & co won (most) of Ireland by violence. Oh & for the record all my direct action has been non-violent.
To be fair, in the age of replicators and transporters, unless we're given explicit situations where people really have built their home from the ground up over a period of years, it's just as possible they replicated their home from the ground up over a period of an hour or so.
"I don't want to leave my home!"
"Don't worry, we'll beam it up right after you!"
"I don't want to leave my home!"
"Don't worry, we'll beam it up right after you!"
Why am I being quoted? This is exactly what I'm suggesting--that the colonists got screwed over. I just think their aims would've been better served by a massive nonviolent resistance within the Federation to prevent that stupid treaty from ever going into force. Every asshole that was involved in that treaty should have been tossed out of office on the next available political cycle, and until then, inconvenienced and undermined in every possible nonviolent way.
Attacking those who are coming at you with deadly force--i.e. military/paramilitary forces...fine. You know what you're signing up for when you pick up a weapon. But when either side engaged in terrorist tactics--NO.
Similar threads
- Poll
