Why does Cardassia feel entitled to Bajor?

[IntrepidMan]

^Ok, fair enough. And Sci, if you want to say that we conquered Afghanistan by installing Karzai, fine. I don't know much about what happened to Norway under Nazi occupation, but if the resistance was minimal and the rule of law largely restored, then I would say yes, they conquered the country. If there were daily bombings and general lawlessness, as in Afghanistan, then no, I would say they tried and failed.

And when you say other countries have the right to sort out their internal conflicts, how far are you willing to take that? That we should have left the Nazis and the Jews to just "sort it out"? That the North Koreans should just "sort it out" with Kim, even after millions of them die of starvation? That Assad should be allowed to sort it out in Syria no matter how many thousands die?

 

[Avon]

i'm just going to say the falklands allegory doesn't work.

the falkland were settled at a similar time to mainland argentina. argentinian claims to the island are as colonial as the british were centuries ago. drop this line o thought.

 

[Sci]

And when you say other countries have the right to sort out their internal conflicts, how far are you willing to take that?

I don't know. I really don't know if there's really an objective standard that we can use to measure all conflicts and determine whether or not intervention is appropriate. I think it's very much a case-by-case thing.

The closest thing I can think is that if there's a genocide going on, we should probably intervene, and that if a democratic resistance movement asks for military intervention, we should seriously consider it. Beyond that, I really don't think reality can be neatly summed up into a single general rule; if we even tried, we'd inevitably have to add so many nuances and caveats that it would be impossible to keep.

That we should have left the Nazis and the Jews to just "sort it out"? That the North Koreans should just "sort it out" with Kim, even after millions of them die of starvation? That Assad should be allowed to sort it out in Syria no matter how many thousands die?

I'd say that intervention to end the Holocaust would have been completely justified (and would cynically point out that the Allies weren't really fighting the Nazis to save the Jews). Similarly, intervention to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar Albanians was justified in the late 1990s, as would have been intervention to prevent the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda.

I think that overthrowing the North Korean regime would be a bad idea. It would violate the rights of the North Korean people to determine their own future, and it would be a war of aggression against a foreign state that has not attacked us first and therefore would be unjustified. Yes, the Kim regime has killed millions through its economic ineptitude. But that's true of many regimes; it's not a valid reason to violate their sovereignty.

(Hell, 1 in 6 Americans today struggles just to put food on the table; how many millions of Americans have died over the years due to poverty? And yet, I don't think anyone would argue that it would be justified for, say, Canada to invade the United States because the U.S.'s economic ineptitude.)

I'd say that we should seriously consider intervening in Syria if the Syrian dissident movement requests open military intervention the same way the Libyan National Transitional Council did. So far, the Syrian dissident movement has requested that outsiders stay out. If we do intervene, we should only do so if there's a strong consensus from the dissidents, from our primary European allies, and from the Arab League, and if we're able to get a United Nations resolution authorizing it.

 

[sonak]

I admire the British for standing up to Hitler, but no, I do not think the allies would have won without the US. But let's not quibble about that--what I am saying is that America has had its good moments too. And you are right, for a long time Americans were content to leave European wars to the Europeans and not get involved. There is still a current of libertarianism/isolationism running through our society.

Can I ask why you think the Nazi's would have defeated Russia. Support provided by the North Sea coveys were minimal. The winter of 1941 which stalled the Russian advance would still have happened. Yes perhaps it would have lasted longer, But given the sheer size of Russia and the man power it could bring, the fact that the Nazi's didn't have any heavy bombers to attack the factories located deep in Russian terrority. Would mean that the Russians could keep bringing more and more tanks/planes etc.. Whilst resources avalable to Nazi Germany would continue to dwindle. Their cities/factories being bombed by the RAF.

I can't say I like where this is going or see the point of debating this. You seem to be very intent on lessoning the impact the US had on winning the war, which frankly I find offensive. But I am no WW2 scholar, and maybe Russia would have eventually beaten Germany. And then what? You would have suffered under Communism instead of facism. Great.

Sci: You cannot possibly believe that we successfully conquered Afghanistan. We tried, and failed, just as every other invading force in that country has failed. We are not leaving because of a job well done; we are leaving to cut our losses. Open a newspaper--nearly every day there are reports of suicide bombings, assassinations and general terror and mayhem. The government we installed in Kabul is laughingly ineffective outside of the capital and barely controls the capital itself. When you conquer a country, you control it. We do not have control in Afghanistan (or Iraq, for that matter).

sorry, but the other poster is correct. The USSR was by far the power most responsible for defeating Nazi Germany. It's not even close. Something like four-fifths of all German casualties were from the Eastern Front, and there's no comparison to German divisions engaged with Western forces from '41 to '44 compared to those engaged with the Soviets. Also, the USSR suffered 20 million casualties compared to less than a million combined between the UK and US.

It's just an uncomfortable truth that American history likes to gloss over that It was basically the Soviets that defeated Hitler.(Not that Americans didn't provide a lot of money, supplies, and bombs)

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Every great power in history be it the Roman's, British or American's etc. recieve a certain amount of backlash about that power and how they use it or don't use it. Do nothing and you get accused of standing by and do nothing, do something and you get accused of being an Imperialistic power.

In the american case, this 'backlash' is at least partially motivated by USA's hypocrisy (a rather new characteristic of hegemons these days).

Personally, I don't think hypocrisy is necessarily a bad thing - at least it shows one accepts certain values as worthwhile and at least tries to put up the appearance of respecting them.
Contrast this with the not-hypocritical imperialist/genocidal powers, common throughout history.

We are not leaving because of a job well done; we are leaving to cut our losses. Open a newspaper--nearly every day there are reports of suicide bombings, assassinations and general terror and mayhem.

Sort of like the Cardassian occupation of Bajor?

This comparison fails.
In Afganistan+Iraq, USA lost ~5000 troops. This caused it to withdraw, but only because it's a liberal democracy and the population actually has a say.

Autoritarian/totalitarian states (as Cardassia was depicted) can lose HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of soldiers and feel no compunction to withdraw, cease fighting, etc - as has happened many times in history.


About newspapers - there are 7 billion people on this planet; enough to supply an unending stream of bad news.

But how bad are these news? You must look at the numbers to see: in Vietnam, USA lost ~58000 men; in all of today's wars on terror, ~5000 men.
Not even a tenth. See the difference?
And the further back in history you go, the larger the numbers become (in proportion to the total population) and the more brutish and short life, in general, is.

Also - it's improbable the taliban will be able to take over Afganistan; yes, they are able - and are - killing thousands. But it takes more than that to conquer a country (and the taliban don't have support from URSS, China or another ~rich/great power).

 

[Sci]

We are not leaving because of a job well done; we are leaving to cut our losses. Open a newspaper--nearly every day there are reports of suicide bombings, assassinations and general terror and mayhem.

Sort of like the Cardassian occupation of Bajor?

This comparison fails.
In Afganistan+Iraq, USA lost ~5000 troops. This caused it to withdraw, but only because it's a liberal democracy and the population actually has a say.

Autoritarian/totalitarian states (as Cardassia was depicted) can lose HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of soldiers and feel no compunction to withdraw, cease fighting, etc - as has happened many times in history.

Except that the canon established explicitly that the Bajoran Resistance, with its terrorism against Cardassian forces, Cardassian civilians, and Bajoran collaborators, was the reason the Cardassians withdrew from Bajor.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

Sci

Yours is the 'feel good' version of the bajorans - heroic defenders, defeating overwhelming odds and gaining freedom.

The cardassians have a different version - it was a political decision, motivated by the dwindling of supplies coming from Bajor (whose resources were believed to be exhausting); the bajoran resistance was a mere nuissance, not some detemining factor in cardasssian political decisions.

Frankly, the cardasssian version fits FAR better with autoritarian/totalitarian (even monarchic) states' politics.
The bajoran version is all but incompatible with it.

 

[sonak]

Sci

Yours is the 'feel good' version of the bajorans - heroic defenders, defeating overwhelming odds and gaining freedom.

The cardassians have a different version - it was a political decision, motivated by the dwindling of supplies coming from Bajor (whose resources were believed to be exhausting); the bajoran resistance was a mere nuissance, not some detemining factor in cardasssian political decisions.

Frankly, the cardasssian version fits FAR better with autoritarian/totalitarian (even monarchic) states' politics.
The bajoran version is all but incompatible with it.

Actually, a totalitarian regime would have every reason to cover-up the fact that they'd been driven off a conquered territory by an "inferior" people. So of course they don't acknowledge why they left and say it was their own decision.


that's dictator propaganda 101: don't admit weakness

 

[Sci]

^^ There's also the general fact that the Cardassian military's grip on the populace had probably been slipping for a long time, between its losses in the Federation-Cardassian Border Wars and the rise of the Cardassian dissident movement. No authoritarian system is perfect or retains perfect control of information. Add to this the fact that the Detapa Council was always a rival to the Central Command's power, and you have a recipe for a dysfunctional authoritarian regime that finds it can't always control public opinion and needs to make some populist decisions to stay in power.

 

[Edit_XYZ]

sonak

Defeat?
Was the cardassian military severely weakened by the bajoran resistance? Had it lost millions of soldiers and thousands of ships? Were its resources streched so thin that it could not have any ships and soldiers sent to Bajor?

Until these come to pass, there's no weakness to cover up, sonak.

Until these come to pass, autoritarian/totalitarian states don't let go of something the dictator/regime really want.
Something they don't want any loner - another matter.

 

[sonak]

sonak

Defeat?
Was the cardassian military severely weakened by the bajoran resistance? Had it lost millions of soldiers and thousands of ships? Were its resources streched so thin that it could not have any ships and soldiers sent to Bajor?

Until these come to pass, there's no weakness to cover up, sonak.

Until these come to pass, autoritarian/totalitarian states don't let go of something the dictator/regime really want.
Something they don't want any loner - another matter.

er, cost/benefit analysis? We don't know the number of Cardassian casualties, but if they were losing more troops than they were gaining in benefit from the occupation than their "strategic withdrawal" is a retreat and defeat.

 

[Sci]

Indeed, one need only look at the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan for an example of an authoritarian government that was eventually defeated by asymmetrical warfare. Liberal democracy is not a necessary condition for defeat by asymmetric tactics.

 

[Sjaddix]

Every great power in history be it the Roman's, British or American's etc. recieve a certain amount of backlash about that power and how they use it or don't use it. Do nothing and you get accused of standing by and do nothing, do something and you get accused of being an Imperialistic power.

In the american case, this 'backlash' is at least partially motivated by USA's hypocrisy (a rather new characteristic of hegemons these days).

Personally, I don't think hypocrisy is necessarily a bad thing - at least it shows one accepts certain values as worthwhile and at least tries to put up the appearance of respecting them.
Contrast this with the not-hypocritical imperialist/genocidal powers, common throughout history.

We are not leaving because of a job well done; we are leaving to cut our losses. Open a newspaper--nearly every day there are reports of suicide bombings, assassinations and general terror and mayhem.

Sort of like the Cardassian occupation of Bajor?

This comparison fails.
In Afganistan+Iraq, USA lost ~5000 troops. This caused it to withdraw, but only because it's a liberal democracy and the population actually has a say.

Autoritarian/totalitarian states (as Cardassia was depicted) can lose HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS/MILLIONS of soldiers and feel no compunction to withdraw, cease fighting, etc - as has happened many times in history.


About newspapers - there are 7 billion people on this planet; enough to supply an unending stream of bad news.

But how bad are these news? You must look at the numbers to see: in Vietnam, USA lost ~58000 men; in all of today's wars on terror, ~5000 men.
Not even a tenth. See the difference?
And the further back in history you go, the larger the numbers become (in proportion to the total population) and the more brutish and short life, in general, is.

Also - it's improbable the taliban will be able to take over Afganistan; yes, they are able - and are - killing thousands. But it takes more than that to conquer a country (and the taliban don't have support from URSS, China or another ~rich/great power).

of course the taliban can take the country. They are members of the native population. We are invaders eventually the US will leave and when that happens the Taliban can reassert dominance. Unless we want to nuke the crap out of them there is no way to stop there resurgence.

 

[Ian Keldon]

^The South a land under occupation? You have got to be kidding me. It's been how many years since the Civil War? This is the 21st century. The country has moved on. We have other issues now.

So, presenting a conquest in terms of it being a feit accompli endows it with legitimacy? Moral authority flows from the barrel of the gun?

I love how some people continuously deride the US for "imperialism" in it's international relations, but don't seem to mind it as much when it is directed at it's own citizenry.

Tying that back into Trek, the Bajorans had that problem too, witness the actions of people like Kai Winn and her supporters in the Provisional Government.

And... I'm struggling to connect this to the topic. Um, was Cardassia's occupation ever legally recognized by the UFP or other powers in the area?

Tacitly, yes. The Federation did nothing but set up refugee camps. It never offered the Bajorans any sort of military assistance nor did it act to legitimize a "government in exile" for the Bajorans.

Certainly. I've viewed the South as a land under occupation for many years. Secession was the legal right of the states under the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the North had no legal justification for using force of arms to prevent their utilizing that right.

The problem with this argument is that the Constitution is unclear on whether or not secession is a legal right of the states. If the South were serious about pursuing a legal justification for secession, they would have taken it to the Supreme Court before unilaterally seceding,

Not according to the Constitution as written. 9th and 10th Amendments reserve all powers not explicitly granted to the Federal gov't to the states, and from there to the people. Secession was well understood prior to the Civil War as a state's right. At least three states (NY, RI and VA) explicitly reserved the right to secede in their ratification of the Constitution.

And it only makes logical sense that the states had that right. After all, the US itself was founded on secession. The term "Revolutionary War" is not accurate.

We also have to consider that the CW was not the first secession crisis in the US. Maine seceeded from Massachussets. There was a call for New England secession during the War of 1812.

And most hypocritically of all (on the part of the North/Union), there is the formation of West Virginia, which seceeded from Virginia itself and joined the Union.

If the Union did not recognize secession, then how can it admit a state seceding from another state?

And yes, before someone brings it up, I am aware of the Texas v. White decision. That post War decision was made in direct contravention to the law and the plain text reading of the Constitution. The SCOTUS does that sometimes when it suits the purposes of those who control the court.

and not have attacked Fort Sumter whilst in the middle of negotiations with the Lincoln Administration over its fate. By any reasonable standard, the South was the aggressor in the Civil War.

First of all, that only shows Lincoln for the two faced liar that he was. On the one hand, he supposedly denied the right to seceed, but he was negotiating with SC. By doing so, he recognized the legitimacy of the Confederate government of SC.

Oh, and the firing on the fort? Happened because the S Carolinians caught the North trying to sneak reinforcements into the fort.

So it was a Cuban Missile Blockade situation. By attempting to "cross the line", the North made the first aggressive move.

Can I ask why you think the Nazi's would have defeated Russia. Support provided by the North Sea coveys were minimal. The winter of 1941 which stalled the Russian advance would still have happened. Yes perhaps it would have lasted longer, But given the sheer size of Russia and the man power it could bring, the fact that the Nazi's didn't have any heavy bombers to attack the factories located deep in Russian terrority. Would mean that the Russians could keep bringing more and more tanks/planes etc.. Whilst resources avalable to Nazi Germany would continue to dwindle. Their cities/factories being bombed by the RAF.

So the Nazi's would have fallen to the Russians...then Europe would have been conquered by the Russians. The only reason Russia joined the Allies was that Hitler stabbed them in the back. Russia was originally an Axis power.

Germany or Russia, either way Europe was screwed w/o the US.

 

[MacLeod]

True Ian and no one has said that would have been a good result, but the initial point put forward was that without US invovlement in WWII, Nazi Germany wouldn't have been defeated. Even if Russia had conquered Europe, Nazi Germany would have been defeated.

So the inital point seems to be flawed. Putting forth a point that a Russian victory would be just as bad as a Nazi one is a different issue.

 

[Jonny]

Well from Dukat's point of view perhaps he doesn't like the fact that it would appear that the Bajoran's where able to apply enough pressure on the occupation forces for central command to decide to withdraw.

Perhaps Dukat couldn't stand the thought that a bunch of ill armed people manage to force the power Union to withdraw.

Yes I agree I think it's more to do with Dukat's ego as well especially since he was in charge of DS9 during the occupation of Bajor as well.

That and probably the wormhole.

 

[Timo]

So, presenting a conquest in terms of it being a feit accompli endows it with legitimacy?

The answer to that appears to be a yes with echoes going back to the start of history.

When has a conquest successfully been challenged from the legitimacy angle? When has a conquest not achieved widespread international legitimacy through its enduring success?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Anwar]

Remember, the official claim was that Cardassia "Formally Annexed" Bajor after years of already being there. That means that the official government signed legal documents turning the governance of their world over to Cardassia, for the rest of the Galactic Community to see.

Of course it was likely at gunpoint but without proof everyone would have to recognize it.

 

[Timo]

Not "have to" - the whole "power/legitimacy/truth comes from the barrel of the gun" thing would dictate that the opponents of Cardassia would just denounce the declaration if that benefited them strategically. But historically, occupations tend to be permanent (or only ended when the occupying power itself gets occupied), so it's usually a good idea to get a head start in putting the new world order in order.

Timo Saloniemi