Was it really corruption in Sins of the Father?

[BillJ]

The Sona and Ba'ku where members of the same race, and the Sona disliked the fact that they had been kicked out. It seemed as if certain information which might have altered the Federation/Starfleets decison was withheld. So whilst they debated the resettlement of the Ba'Ku they did so without all the information.

Had they known the full extend of the relationship between the Sona and Ba'ku it is possible that it would appear to violate General Order 1 they might have said no.

Non-interference is non-interference.

Which would've meant they would need to stand back and allow the S'ona and Ba'ku to fight it out. Which would've led to the extermination of the Ba'ku.

Non-interference is a bitch.

Starfleet and the Federation really were doing the most practical thing possible in this situation. They couldn't afford to fight another conflict while in the midst of the Dominion War. They more than likely couldn't afford the resources to protect the Ba'ku from the S'ona, which would violate the Prime Directive. Then there's no telling who the S'ona would've teamed with to obtain the particles if the Federation had said no.

So the Federation really had three simple choices:

Move the Ba'ku.
Protect the Ba'ku.
Or essentially declare open season on the Ba'ku.

Yes they'll return to their normal lifespans but they won't die bloody, pointless deaths. YMMV.

 

[RAMA]

A movie often derided on these boards for being "boring", but this speech is exactly why it is Star Trek at it's best.

No, what it did was leave the audience with the impression that Picard is a self-righteous blowhard. One who violated multiple orders before he even knew what was going on, interfered with another commander's mission and blatantly violated the orders of his government.

I always thought this line from Insurrection perfectly sums up the problems with Picard's stance in the film:

I have to go back, if only to ...slow things down at the Federation Council.

It isn't the job of a starship captain to slow things down at the Federation Council (they're a body representative of 150 worlds). It's his job to carry out Federation policy, no matter how distasteful he may personally find it (see Journey's End). It shows how self-important Stewart and the writers' made Picard and is one of the reasons the TNG movies lost their way. Hell, Picard didn't even know the entire story before he began interfering with Dougherty's mission.

If Picard wants to slow things down at the Federation Council, then he needs to give up Starfleet and get elected as his worlds representative. His actions are no different than Admiral Leyton, he decided that his moral compass should override that of a democratically elected body.

EDIT: Another thread sucked down the dark, dark hole that is Star Trek: Insurrection.

Utter nonsense...blindly following orders got millions of men killed in conflicts where technology had overtaken tactics, where one culture tried to exterminate another, where men with no religious faith are forced to bow down before gods...there are fewer and fewer people willing to not protest such blind faith in one's government.

"Oh the Federation Council decided so it must be right"....ridiculous.

RAMA

 

[RAMA]

Yes of course it was corruption. No matter how you slice or dice it, the Klingon High Council engaged in a cover-up. The only one that came out with their honour intact from the whole thing was Worf. (and I'm speaking metaphorically).

As it turns out at best all it did was buy something like 1.5 years before a civil war errupted. 1.5years for the Duras family to plot, schme and strengthen their position even more.

Ezri summed up the Empire fairly well, in some respects because Worf was raised outside of the Empiure he had a more idealised view of Klingon Honour.

Yeah it made for good drama, but the Klingon Empire was a mess even through DS9. It seems clear that some sort of huge social upheaval would happen in the 25th century on the Klingon homeworld.

 

[sonak]

A movie often derided on these boards for being "boring", but this speech is exactly why it is Star Trek at it's best.

No, what it did was leave the audience with the impression that Picard is a self-righteous blowhard. One who violated multiple orders before he even knew what was going on, interfered with another commander's mission and blatantly violated the orders of his government.

I always thought this line from Insurrection perfectly sums up the problems with Picard's stance in the film:

I have to go back, if only to ...slow things down at the Federation Council.

It isn't the job of a starship captain to slow things down at the Federation Council (they're a body representative of 150 worlds). It's his job to carry out Federation policy, no matter how distasteful he may personally find it (see Journey's End). It shows how self-important Stewart and the writers' made Picard and is one of the reasons the TNG movies lost their way. Hell, Picard didn't even know the entire story before he began interfering with Dougherty's mission.

If Picard wants to slow things down at the Federation Council, then he needs to give up Starfleet and get elected as his worlds representative. His actions are no different than Admiral Leyton, he decided that his moral compass should override that of a democratically elected body.

EDIT: Another thread sucked down the dark, dark hole that is Star Trek: Insurrection.

Utter nonsense...blindly following orders got millions of men killed in conflicts where technology had overtaken tactics, where one culture tried to exterminate another, where men with no religious faith are forced to bow down before gods...there are fewer and fewer people willing to not protest such blind faith in one's government.

"Oh the Federation Council decided so it must be right"....ridiculous.

RAMA[/


Funny, because that wasn't the position Picard took with Wesley in "journey's end." there, Picard basically said "leave the political decision stuff to your superiors and shut up."

 

[BillJ]

Utter nonsense...blindly following orders got millions of men killed in conflicts where technology had overtaken tactics, where one culture tried to exterminate another, where men with no religious faith are forced to bow down before gods...there are fewer and fewer people willing to not protest such blind faith in one's government.

"Oh the Federation Council decided so it must be right"....ridiculous.

RAMA

First off, moving six hundred people does not an atrocity make. It's distasteful to see people try to tie eminent domain to real life atrocities like the "trail of tears" or the holocaust.

Second, so it would be okay for a military commander on the ground in Afghanistan to take his men, munitions and vehicles and decide to sit out the fighting on moral grounds? Or worse, use those assets to help the Taliban fight off "U.S. aggressors"?

What Picard does in Insurrection is use Federation assets against Federation interests. We have a word in our vocabulary that sums up that action, treason. Would it be okay for Picard to sit the Enterprise out of the Dominion War based on his own personal ethics? Would it be okay for every starship commander to decide personally when and where he fights battles and when to follow orders based on personal ethics?

"Sorry, you're going to have to postpone the attack on the Dominion munitions dump. The majority of the Seventh Fleet commanders are Christians and refuse to work on the Sabbath."

"The Ninth Fleet is commanded overwhelmingly by pacifists. So we'll have to find someone else to blockade the wormhole because they refuse to fire on Jem'Hadar ships coming through."

Face it, as a military commander, you're going to receive orders that are going to challenge your personal code of ethics.

The worst things about Insurrection is how Picard violates orders time and again before he ever knows what's going on with the Ba'ku, about how he overreacts to the relocation. He never once sees a bigger picture than the piece of ass planetside

Funny, because that wasn't the position Picard took with Wesley in "journey's end." there, Picard basically said "leave the political decision stuff to your superiors and shut up."

Picard plays Daugherty in Journey's End. The only difference is we get exposition on why Picard is against it and we know the character. Daugherty is presented as nothing more than a "Snidely Whiplash" character rubbing his hands together and twirling his mustache as his evil plan to destroy the peaceful Ba'ku unfolds.

Star Trek: Insurrection literally has less depth than an episode of Penelope Pitstop.

 

[RAMA]

No, what it did was leave the audience with the impression that Picard is a self-righteous blowhard. One who violated multiple orders before he even knew what was going on, interfered with another commander's mission and blatantly violated the orders of his government.

I always thought this line from Insurrection perfectly sums up the problems with Picard's stance in the film:



It isn't the job of a starship captain to slow things down at the Federation Council (they're a body representative of 150 worlds). It's his job to carry out Federation policy, no matter how distasteful he may personally find it (see Journey's End). It shows how self-important Stewart and the writers' made Picard and is one of the reasons the TNG movies lost their way. Hell, Picard didn't even know the entire story before he began interfering with Dougherty's mission.

If Picard wants to slow things down at the Federation Council, then he needs to give up Starfleet and get elected as his worlds representative. His actions are no different than Admiral Leyton, he decided that his moral compass should override that of a democratically elected body.

EDIT: Another thread sucked down the dark, dark hole that is Star Trek: Insurrection.

Utter nonsense...blindly following orders got millions of men killed in conflicts where technology had overtaken tactics, where one culture tried to exterminate another, where men with no religious faith are forced to bow down before gods...there are fewer and fewer people willing to not protest such blind faith in one's government.

"Oh the Federation Council decided so it must be right"....ridiculous.

RAMA[/


Funny, because that wasn't the position Picard took with Wesley in "journey's end." there, Picard basically said "leave the political decision stuff to your superiors and shut up."

Well to be fair, few people ever took Wesley that seriously on the show...

 

[RAMA]

Utter nonsense...blindly following orders got millions of men killed in conflicts where technology had overtaken tactics, where one culture tried to exterminate another, where men with no religious faith are forced to bow down before gods...there are fewer and fewer people willing to not protest such blind faith in one's government.

"Oh the Federation Council decided so it must be right"....ridiculous.

RAMA

First off, moving six hundred people does not an atrocity make. It's distasteful to see people try to tie eminent domain to real life atrocities like the "trail of tears" or the holocaust.

Second, so it would be okay for a military commander on the ground in Afghanistan to take his men, munitions and vehicles and decide to sit out the fighting on moral grounds? Or worse, use those assets to help the Taliban fight off "U.S. aggressors"?

What Picard does in Insurrection is use Federation assets against Federation interests. We have a word in our vocabulary that sums up that action, treason. Would it be okay for Picard to sit the Enterprise out of the Dominion War based on his own personal ethics? Would it be okay for every starship commander to decide personally when and where he fights battles and when to follow orders based on personal ethics?

"Sorry, you're going to have to postpone the attack on the Dominion munitions dump. The majority of the Seventh Fleet commanders are Christians and refuse to work on the Sabbath."

"The Ninth Fleet is commanded overwhelmingly by pacifists. So we'll have to find someone else to blockade the wormhole because they refuse to fire on Jem'Hadar ships coming through."

Face it, as a military commander, you're going to receive orders that are going to challenge your personal code of ethics.

The worst things about Insurrection is how Picard violates orders time and again before he ever knows what's going on with the Ba'ku, about how he overreacts to the relocation. He never once sees a bigger picture than the piece of ass planetside

Funny, because that wasn't the position Picard took with Wesley in "journey's end." there, Picard basically said "leave the political decision stuff to your superiors and shut up."

Picard plays Daugherty in Journey's End. The only difference is we get exposition on why Picard is against it and we know the character. Daugherty is presented as nothing more than a "Snidely Whiplash" character rubbing his hands together and twirling his mustache as his evil plan to destroy the peaceful Ba'ku unfolds.

Star Trek: Insurrection literally has less depth than an episode of Penelope Pitstop.

Don't think we'll ever resolve this issue, its the same kind of issues seen in politics with in the USA with liberals and democrats, and so on.