• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Two Romulan States

However, foreign societies do not have a right to interfere in their domestic politics unless that society has attacked foreign societies.
Hmm...outta curiosity...would you be willing to extend that statement to ”unless that society has attacked foreign societies...and/or provided safe haven for those who do"?
I would; I don't distinguish between attacking a country and providing safe haven and operating grounds for those who do. So, no, I do not and have never objected to the United States's war in Afghanistan -- though I add that I believe that the U.S. needs to develop a clearer sense of achievable objectives, a willingness to allow Afghanistan to have its own internal conflicts so long as they do not threaten the U.S. or our allies, or constitute genocide/chattel slavery-level human rights abuses, and a game plan to know how to leave when it becomes clear that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will simply no longer be able to use Afghanistan as a base of operations against the U.S. or its allies.

Also, out of curiosity, would you also accept that given what we know about safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan (both on its Eastern and Western borders), that the U.S., Europe and India have the right to root out these elements by force (even though they're choosing not to exercise that right for whatever reasons) ?
 
Hartzilla2007's correct...this change in topic is bizzare!

It's very stimulating though--intellectually and emotionally. :lol:

Okay...I'd think the point is this:

Just as the "Islamo-fascists" use an..."interperetation" of the Qu'ran to justify their atrocities...so those governments in the Typhon Pact may play on the belief systems of their respective peoples in order to justify their power...and what they do with it.
 
Hartzilla2007's correct...this change in topic is bizzare!

Not for around here :). I personally quite enjoy it. We all learn much about one another due to these political-moral-philosophical-educational tangents, it helps with our sense of community. I feel like I know you all, at least in part. It's very courageous of everyone to be so open with their views/knowledge/experiences/beliefs/etc.:)
 
^@Rush

And also, the question of whether the UFP would be justified in interfering in the "internal affairs" of the Typhon Pact should they be committing acts of genocide, slavery and other crimes on sentient species.
 
^ Poor old Typhon Pact, they haven't been formed five minutes, already they're commiting acts which might have made Hitler say, "Steady On lets think about what we're doing"
 
^ Poor old Typhon Pact, they haven't been formed five minutes, already they're commiting acts which might have made Hitler say, "Steady On lets think about what we're doing"

:lol:

Kicking down the bright new upstart with the temerity to challenge our beloved Federation. ;)

It's all hypothetical of course. I myself, would like to see the Pact rising as an economic, military, political and moral force in the quadrant and then see how the UFP handles it.
 
^ Poor old Typhon Pact, they haven't been formed five minutes, already they're commiting acts which might have made Hitler say, "Steady On lets think about what we're doing"

:lol:

Kicking down the bright new upstart with the temerity to challenge our beloved Federation. ;)

It's all hypothetical of course. I myself, would like to see the Pact rising as an economic, military, political and moral force in the quadrant and then see how the UFP handles it.

It would be then all the things the UFP has done which may be morally questionnable over the years would be dragged up.

And one of their Starfleet Captains killed a Romulan Senator and faked evidence to drag the Romulans into their war.

They let that civilisation die because of their prime directive.

Who brought the attention of the borg?

etc etc...
 
^Personally? I'd think a good refutation to such propaganda would be...a revelation of what those powers did...for their own interests.

I mean...propaganda about the RSE...could be very effective...as it would ALSO be...very true! (Take: the actions of the Tal Shiar)

"So...you're going to use our past actions against us? What we did, we did because we had to! And let's be honest, buddies...your record is a LOT more stained than ours...and you dare to lecture us?"

Hypocrisy...is a very dangerous thing....
 
Getting caught up on this thread and stumbling onto the Benedict Arnold references, I was so tempted to bring up the idea that maybe - from the Canadian POV - we owe Benedict more than a few for helping make sure we could simply be Canadian. Probably wasn't anywhere near his intentions at the time, but he helped make it happen for us.

Oh, and one of those things the Americans-not-quite-yet were objecting to was the guarantee to the Quebecois-to-be that they could go on being Catholic after being handed over by France to the UK. And we've already covered the First Nations.

Right.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled Typhon Pact strategic/tactical/diplomatic/ethical response debate. Particularly the Romulan schism in progress...
 
^
No they didn't. It was the Dominion in cahoots with the Cardassians.

And the Dominion was pissed becuase the Federation was screwing around in their back yard ie the Gamma Quandrant.
Yeah, but didn't they not even know about them until they were already pissed?

Of course it didn't help that after finding out that the Dominion were pissed, why they were pissed, and the way of dealing with what pissed them off Dax has to go and say the Federation won't stop doing the things that is pissing the Dominion off even though their aware their pissing them off and what the Dominion will do to the Federation if they keep pissing them off, you'd think being an ambassador in her previous life would have lead her to annoying the pissed off militeristic empire that has thoroughly kicked their asses at this point.
 
the "Islamo-fascists"
I really hate this term that the right-wing invented. It doesn't really make any sense.

For example, you called Saddam an 'Islamo-fascist'. However, there is no way he would fit the definition of the term if it is as I understand it. Saddam was never a religious man or leader. He was scared to death of the power of religious freedom, so he banned displays of worship in Iraq completely. He knew that it could possibly undermine his rule, so he made sure that no one could practice openly or in any kind of group. This directly ties into the absurdity that Saddam would ever have anything to do with Al Qaeda. Although Al Qaeda contacted him, he refused to hear anything they had to say because Osama bin Laden was a major threat to his rule. Why? Simply because the fanaticism that Osama inspired would likely cause his (Saddam's) people to rise up against him and overthrow him. There are several reports of Saddam ordering the killings of Islamicists similar to Al Qaeda in his country a few times.
 
Saddam hated all religion, there used to be a sizeable Christian population in Iraq that lived peacefully with the Muslims. but then he fucked it all up...
 
My impression of the Romulan government:

Head of State: Emperor (Vulcan's .... Series)

Head of Government: Praetor

Vice Head of Government: Proconsul (also lead ambassador, with ambassadors being consuls)

Representatives: Senators (democratic?)

Cabinet: The Continuing Committee (with un-elected members, such as head of the Tal Shiar)

Form of government: One party state? Constitutional monarchy. Empire.
I think it's funny how, as the injection of random Roman buzzwords into the Romulan government occured during the race's formative years, the chain of command got reversed.

Before the establishment of the emperor greatly reduced the influence of other Roman political positions, the consuls were at the top of the food chain of currently elected officials in the government (although countered by the tribunes). A proconsul was a consul who stayed in his position for more than his actual term (1 year), usually due to war, during which time new consuls were still elected. The praetors were a level below the consuls, and were actually technically judges. The Senate was a body that housed all living previously elected officials, and they had the collective power to pretty much but the kibosh on anything the consuls or tribunes said by virtue of shear influence. That the praetor is the usual ultimate ruler of the Romulan empire has thus always given me a bit of a chuckle since I first learned of all this.

(Man, give a guy one college class on Rome and a Latinist for a fiancee and he thinks he know everything. :rolleyes: Please forgive me for anything improperly stated.)

Small correction. A proconsul is a governor. After their one year term, consuls went off to manage a province.


the "Islamo-fascists"
I really hate this term that the right-wing invented. It doesn't really make any sense.

For example, you called Saddam an 'Islamo-fascist'. However, there is no way he would fit the definition of the term if it is as I understand it. Saddam was never a religious man or leader. He was scared to death of the power of religious freedom, so he banned displays of worship in Iraq completely. He knew that it could possibly undermine his rule, so he made sure that no one could practice openly or in any kind of group. This directly ties into the absurdity that Saddam would ever have anything to do with Al Qaeda. Although Al Qaeda contacted him, he refused to hear anything they had to say because Osama bin Laden was a major threat to his rule. Why? Simply because the fanaticism that Osama inspired would likely cause his (Saddam's) people to rise up against him and overthrow him. There are several reports of Saddam ordering the killings of Islamicists similar to Al Qaeda in his country a few times.

Correct. The whole Islamo-fascist thing is so stupid, only extreme right-wing lunatics could have invented it


As for the Romulans, they seem to be following the Romans' split into Eastern and Western Empire quite nicely.
 
Hmm...outta curiosity...would you be willing to extend that statement to ”unless that society has attacked foreign societies...and/or provided safe haven for those who do"?
I would; I don't distinguish between attacking a country and providing safe haven and operating grounds for those who do. So, no, I do not and have never objected to the United States's war in Afghanistan -- though I add that I believe that the U.S. needs to develop a clearer sense of achievable objectives, a willingness to allow Afghanistan to have its own internal conflicts so long as they do not threaten the U.S. or our allies, or constitute genocide/chattel slavery-level human rights abuses, and a game plan to know how to leave when it becomes clear that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations will simply no longer be able to use Afghanistan as a base of operations against the U.S. or its allies.

Also, out of curiosity, would you also accept that given what we know about safe havens for terrorists in Pakistan (both on its Eastern and Western borders), that the U.S., Europe and India have the right to root out these elements by force (even though they're choosing not to exercise that right for whatever reasons) ?

Yes? No? On the fence? :)
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top