Sisko and Chopper from the Star Wars universe would be a more dangerous team than glycerol and sulfuric acid. 
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Was trying to be nice because I know he's a popular character. Hell, I love the character. Star Trek is at its best when it has genuinely flawed characters. But I certainly can't look at him as any kind of role model.Kind of?
Last edited:
Now THAT'S a damn well thing to have said. I tire of the later seasons and I LOVE TNG. There are very few people who actually recognise Genes later years. Cantankerous bitch as he may have been.
Definite war criminal. I understand where you’re coming from, my youngest son is named Benjamin.
I'd at least somewhat trust Sisko.Sisko and Chopper from the Star Wars universe would be a more dangerous team than glycerol and sulfuric acid.
Chopper is a straight up sociopath and a murderer for no other reason than personal gain.
"Heroes are always less than what we think them to be."
The Maquis are not a single race nor ethnicity, nor was Sisko attacking them for reasons of their race or ethnicity. Further, I maintain that Sisko did not intend to kill anyone. He provided a warning to them of what he was about to do, and even when he launched the attack, they mention that they are scrambling their transport ships, implying that they would be able to evacuate. He was trying to make the planet unusable by them, not kill them.
He made the planet uninhabitable to humans. He forcefully caused the expulsion of a group of people from their homes, based entirely on their species.
Er... no, he didn't. Or do you think that Michael Eddington, Ro Laren, and B'Elanna Torres are all the same species? The Maquis is not a species, it is an organization, one which considers itself freedom fighters but which the Federation has designated as a terrorist organization. His attack was based on their membership in that organization, not their species.
He poisoned the atmosphere of a Maquis colony world, specifically making it uninhabitable to humans for 50 years. He knew this would force the evacuation of the colony. He purposely and knowingly forced the evacuation of a particular species from their homes.
Last edited:
The bombing of London, England by the German National Socialist Laborers and Workers Party...was a war crime with consequences.
The counter bombing of Hamburg Germany and of Dresden.
In a war, you are either fighting for your people, or are not fighting for your people. The ones that aren't fighting, are dead, sooner or later. Belgium...was in the way. Didn't fight. The Dutch did something interesting, however, instead of fighting to the death, or turning over their Jews.
THEY are put on the Yellow Star of David. They chose to die... Blessed are those Dutch.
There is a very good reason why there was a Deep Space Nine episode with its title in Latin. Translated: it read "In War The Law IS SILENT ".
This is a very complex question, and one could write a very long paper on it.
But it boils down to this: Pearl Harbor.
In some parts of the United States, some are now saying that we should not have reacted at all. This shows a complete lack of understanding.
Early 1990s motion picture 'The Untouchables', with Sean Connery paying the part of a beat cop...on a bridge talking to a FBI agent. 'If one of them beats one of yours, then send one of them to the hospital, if one of them sends one of yours to the hospital, then send one of theirs to the morgue. '
If you and them are totally pacifists...then no problem. But surrender will bring even worse problems. The Dominion HAD to be stopped. Period. This is what they were designed for. The Cardasians HAD to be stopped.
Not to do so would have been worse...
The counter bombing of Hamburg Germany and of Dresden.
In a war, you are either fighting for your people, or are not fighting for your people. The ones that aren't fighting, are dead, sooner or later. Belgium...was in the way. Didn't fight. The Dutch did something interesting, however, instead of fighting to the death, or turning over their Jews.
THEY are put on the Yellow Star of David. They chose to die... Blessed are those Dutch.
There is a very good reason why there was a Deep Space Nine episode with its title in Latin. Translated: it read "In War The Law IS SILENT ".
This is a very complex question, and one could write a very long paper on it.
But it boils down to this: Pearl Harbor.
In some parts of the United States, some are now saying that we should not have reacted at all. This shows a complete lack of understanding.
Early 1990s motion picture 'The Untouchables', with Sean Connery paying the part of a beat cop...on a bridge talking to a FBI agent. 'If one of them beats one of yours, then send one of them to the hospital, if one of them sends one of yours to the hospital, then send one of theirs to the morgue. '
If you and them are totally pacifists...then no problem. But surrender will bring even worse problems. The Dominion HAD to be stopped. Period. This is what they were designed for. The Cardasians HAD to be stopped.
Not to do so would have been worse...
The committing of a crime in the name of noble ends is still a crime.
I dunno better (as TV, I feel they’re mostly a lot cruder); but I’d certainly rather live in the peaceful, intellectual world of the first season, instead of the retroactively rather war-torn one of later seasons.
I really disagree with the view that Insurrection should have instead been a Dominion War movie, that probably would have been much better, sure Insurrection was probably at least a little too low stakes but the TNG cast doing a Dominion War movie would have felt way too much like them doing, trying to do someone else's show, plot, themes, tone. And while a TNG Dominion War novel is fine, some were good, trying to do that as movie probably would be way too awkward and complicated just story/plotwise let alone with the movie neither beginning nor finishing the war.
Noble ends?
I did not use the word 'Noble', nor did I use the word 'Royal'. You may HATE war, and should. But don't fear it, because the fear of war is what got the World, World War II. And fear of War, may get us a very radioactive World War III.
And make no mistake, War is terrible business.
But it happens, from time to time.
I did not use the word 'Noble', nor did I use the word 'Royal'. You may HATE war, and should. But don't fear it, because the fear of war is what got the World, World War II. And fear of War, may get us a very radioactive World War III.
And make no mistake, War is terrible business.
But it happens, from time to time.
Sisko was doing his crime for what ends then?
I'm not looking for a polemic on war but a recognition of a crime committed and to what ended?
A Starfleet Office's job in time of war, is the same as an American Military Officer's job. Or Japanese Self Defense Force Officer's. Or what ever. Prosecute the war to the best advantage. Losing an extinction level war, is a crime in and of itself. And make no mistake that was the purpose of the Dominion. Not enslavement. Fighting a war with two hands tied behind your back is the most stupid thing that you can do.
Let's look at this another way. Before World War II, every single nation that could, had studied the United States Military Doctrine. Then you had,United States Military Officer's. The Empire of Japan, knew what to expect. Backwards, forwards, upside down, right side up, diangled(left/right), and so on. The Imperial Japanese Military knew! So how come the United States did, and its Allies?
Because American Officers didn't follow Doctrine. They went their own way. This is the polite way of putting it.
One of the first rules of warfare is to never do what the enemy expects. Especially when you are backed into near defeat.
How many Fleets did Starfleet lose playing it your way? Or more exactly according to Doctrine? How close were they to Losing the entire war due to "apparent" ethics?
In the 'Best of Both Worlds', Riker was told to throw out the book.
Because the most important thing to remember about war is: don't let the opponent decide things for you. Unless of course you are suicidal. Which IS, a mortal sin.
So, two crimes here: the first is committing a crime against the opponent, and the second is to fail to do your duty, properly.
Duke Wellington said that the only thing sadder than a battle won, was a battle lost.
The Motion Picture 'Gettysburg' I think has a line in it where one of the U. S. Generals said to the affect that to be a good soldier was to love the the Amry the most. But to be a good Officer in the Army, you had to be willing to destroy that which love the most.
Diana Troi when she was taking the exam to go to the next Officer grade learned a valuable lesson. She had to be willing to order her friend to his certain death.
The United States Declaration of Independence. The signers pledge their Sacred Honor - in other words commit war crimes. They did. But so did some British Officer's.
It happens.
Why do you think that Veterans don't talk about it? They those that served in actual combat did things that perhaps by their standards and understanding were war crimes.
Like getting up the morning and shooting someone before they were shooting at a legitimate target.
And what about the Enlisted that fragged Officer's for cause?
Make no mistake WAR, is a crime. And a crying shame.
Let's look at this another way. Before World War II, every single nation that could, had studied the United States Military Doctrine. Then you had,United States Military Officer's. The Empire of Japan, knew what to expect. Backwards, forwards, upside down, right side up, diangled(left/right), and so on. The Imperial Japanese Military knew! So how come the United States did, and its Allies?
Because American Officers didn't follow Doctrine. They went their own way. This is the polite way of putting it.
One of the first rules of warfare is to never do what the enemy expects. Especially when you are backed into near defeat.
How many Fleets did Starfleet lose playing it your way? Or more exactly according to Doctrine? How close were they to Losing the entire war due to "apparent" ethics?
In the 'Best of Both Worlds', Riker was told to throw out the book.
Because the most important thing to remember about war is: don't let the opponent decide things for you. Unless of course you are suicidal. Which IS, a mortal sin.
So, two crimes here: the first is committing a crime against the opponent, and the second is to fail to do your duty, properly.
Duke Wellington said that the only thing sadder than a battle won, was a battle lost.
The Motion Picture 'Gettysburg' I think has a line in it where one of the U. S. Generals said to the affect that to be a good soldier was to love the the Amry the most. But to be a good Officer in the Army, you had to be willing to destroy that which love the most.
Diana Troi when she was taking the exam to go to the next Officer grade learned a valuable lesson. She had to be willing to order her friend to his certain death.
The United States Declaration of Independence. The signers pledge their Sacred Honor - in other words commit war crimes. They did. But so did some British Officer's.
It happens.
Why do you think that Veterans don't talk about it? They those that served in actual combat did things that perhaps by their standards and understanding were war crimes.
Like getting up the morning and shooting someone before they were shooting at a legitimate target.
And what about the Enlisted that fragged Officer's for cause?
Make no mistake WAR, is a crime. And a crying shame.
A lot of words to not talk about Sisko.
not a criminal till you're convicted!Kind of?
Similar threads
- Locked
