• 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!

Would Obama prefer Kirk or Picard?

Which great Captain would Obama prefer?


  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .
Just like all the Star Trek shows since TNG, DS9 really grabbed its foothold in the third season. There's a lot of interesting political backstory, and a handful of great eps, that would be nice to know for the continuity of the series as a whole in the first couple seasons, but season 3 is when it really starts kicking into greatness.
 
Oh, and on the Sisko thing--sorry. Sisko is way, way too badass for Obama. Obama is not in Sisko's category. At least, if he is, he hasn't proven it to me yet. Show him kicking ass and taking names (and NOT just against people who give him bad press) and THEN we'll talk.

Truth be told, the only president that's in Sisko's brand of bad-ass is Teddy Roosevelt.

Obama says he's not comfortable with victory, That it brings him the mental image of Emperor Hirohito signing the surrender document on the USS Missouri (The Emperor didn't, it was the Ambassador and a General).

To me, it seemed that he had a dual point:
1. That we should be cautious about self-confident rhetoric that we use, ie avoid repeats of such beneficial short-term/disastrous long-term buzzwords like "Mission Accomplished" and "Axis of Evil"
2. That succeeding doesn't mean beating someone back but improving a foreign nation. It shouldn't be a victory for us but a victory for the Afghan people who are fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Starfleet Captains are all about victory.

Tell that to Esteban!
 
What do you suggest Obama should have done in that situation?

- Bomb the infrastructure of Iran, which does more harm to the protesters than it does to the government?
- Bomb government buildings and start taking out government personal, which might prompt retributions against the protesters to prevent them from taking over in the subsequent power vacuum?
- Impose strict sanctions on imports into Iran, which again hurt the protesters more than they hurt the government?
- Invade with a sea, air, and ground presence having to remain to control Iran after the invasion, which might be a problem considering we're already involved in two other similar and costly wars/occupations?
- Make a bunch of empty promises to pledge active support for the protesters which we can't back up with actual actions right now both for diplomatic and logistical reasons?

Something else? Let's hear it.

At least state that he was in full support. Going to war would be a problem, yes--but covert aid might have worked. Given that a large part of the protesting was being driven by the Internet, I would have done everything I could to help the protesters get around government firewalls, blocks on social media, etc. That would give the protesters the continued ability to coordinate...not to mention that from a US perspective it would take a relatively low amount of resources and manpower to accomplish.

But at the VERY least, an unreserved statement of support could've helped galvanize the protesters somewhat, as it did in the Eastern Bloc when those regimes started to crumble (think of the protests led by Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel). Would you have a guarantee of success? Goodness no. But it would've been a far cry better than the tepid response that we DID have.
 
I voted Janeway, just for the hell of it. He'd have a beer with all of them, of course -- that is is the real option!
 
To me, it seemed that he had a dual point:
1. That we should be cautious about self-confident rhetoric that we use, ie avoid repeats of such beneficial short-term/disastrous long-term buzzwords like "Mission Accomplished" and "Axis of Evil"
2. That succeeding doesn't mean beating someone back but improving a foreign nation. It shouldn't be a victory for us but a victory for the Afghan people who are fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Compare and contrast your viewpoint with our history and current relationship with Japan. For us to succeed, the Japanese had to be beaten back across the South Pacific, and taken to task in their homeland before hostilities were curtailed.

While Obama isn't comfortable with victory as a concept, the vanquished Japanese Empire was rebuilt with our help, is now a valuable ally, and a world power in their own right.

Sometimes, you have to kick the dog to stop it from biting.
 
To me, it seemed that he had a dual point:
1. That we should be cautious about self-confident rhetoric that we use, ie avoid repeats of such beneficial short-term/disastrous long-term buzzwords like "Mission Accomplished" and "Axis of Evil"
2. That succeeding doesn't mean beating someone back but improving a foreign nation. It shouldn't be a victory for us but a victory for the Afghan people who are fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Compare and contrast your viewpoint with our history and current relationship with Japan. For us to succeed, the Japanese had to be beaten back across the South Pacific, and taken to task in their homeland before hostilities were curtailed.

While Obama isn't comfortable with victory as a concept, the vanquished Japanese Empire was rebuilt with our help, is now a valuable ally, and a world power in their own right.

Sometimes, you have to kick the dog to stop it from biting.

That's the thing though, we were fighting the Japanese government as a whole. We weren't fighting to improve Japan as the original goal, the original goal was to really actually defeat them. At this point in time however, we have already defeated the Taliban regime (eight years ago under Bush). As Obama pointed out, we're not fighting Afghanistan itself, we're fighting the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are in Afghanistan. We're not fighting to help rebuild the Taliban; whereas the Afghan population themselves have been our ally for eight years.

It seems that we're there's some difficulty in differentiating one from the other and muddling up the mission, and it's very philosophically different than WWII Japan; the goal to help them out only came after they were beaten. Not so with Afghanistan, where the Taliban had been taunting the world since the mid-90s.

What dog are we kicking in order to help out in the future? We can't be kicking the wrong dog here, especially if that dog's been helping us.
 
Janeway's name is spelled wrong in the poll options. Which sort of corresponds nicely with the OP's current, somwhat self-depricating avatar. ;)
As for the question itself, what exactly do you mean? Prefer either one as a fan of Star Trek? As a model for his politics? If it's the former, it would probably be Kirk since Obama seems to be a TOS guy.
 
Janeway's name is spelled wrong in the poll options. Which sort of corresponds nicely with the OP's current, somwhat self-depricating avatar. ;)
As for the question itself, what exactly do you mean? Prefer either one as a fan of Star Trek? As a model for his politics? If it's the former, it would probably be Kirk since Obama seems to be a TOS guy.

You can base your choice on whatever you want. Up to you.

Sorry about Janeway's name. My bad.

As for the avatar, I remember GWB being depicted as a chimp. I thought this was a nicer option. ;)
 
As for the avatar, I remember GWB being depicted as a chimp. I thought this was a nicer option. ;)

If I were you, I'd go with something else because in the end, it says 'Idiot' or 'Moron' under your name. I find it kind of amusing but I don't think that's what you're going for.
 
I dunno. I voted "equal opportunity" out of bitter amusement, but--I can tell you he would NOT have picked Jimbo.

He'd look at all the times Kirk took matters into his own hands, freeing alien races from machine-rulers, and condemn him for "showing arrogance in imposing our ideals," yadah, yadah, yadah.
 
I REALLY need to give this DS9 thing another look!
Yeah, you do. I know what you mean, I quit after the first season, around 'The Storyteller' (which still, IMHO, is one of the dumbest Trek episodes ever)
But when I came back and watched it on a later season, I was really impressed. Watch after the 2nd season, it actually was great.
 
What do you suggest Obama should have done in that situation?

- Bomb the infrastructure of Iran, which does more harm to the protesters than it does to the government?
- Bomb government buildings and start taking out government personal, which might prompt retributions against the protesters to prevent them from taking over in the subsequent power vacuum?
- Impose strict sanctions on imports into Iran, which again hurt the protesters more than they hurt the government?
- Invade with a sea, air, and ground presence having to remain to control Iran after the invasion, which might be a problem considering we're already involved in two other similar and costly wars/occupations?
- Make a bunch of empty promises to pledge active support for the protesters which we can't back up with actual actions right now both for diplomatic and logistical reasons?

Something else? Let's hear it.

At least state that he was in full support. Going to war would be a problem, yes--but covert aid might have worked. Given that a large part of the protesting was being driven by the Internet, I would have done everything I could to help the protesters get around government firewalls, blocks on social media, etc. That would give the protesters the continued ability to coordinate...not to mention that from a US perspective it would take a relatively low amount of resources and manpower to accomplish.

But at the VERY least, an unreserved statement of support could've helped galvanize the protesters somewhat, as it did in the Eastern Bloc when those regimes started to crumble (think of the protests led by Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel). Would you have a guarantee of success? Goodness no. But it would've been a far cry better than the tepid response that we DID have.

Which goes back to what I was talking about when I said making "empty promises." Unless you're willing to go the whole nine yards to support a revolution or attempted coup d'état, which if we're being honest would be the goal of pledging "full support" to the protesters, making promises you can't keep because of a tenuous and shifting political situation can be dangerous.

In 1991 the Kurds and Shi'ites in Northwest and Southeast Iraq respectively were given the "full support" of the George HW Bush Administration through pledges by the CIA via radio in Saudi Arabia and press statements, so they started a fully-fledged uprising against Saddam, only to have us negotiate a cease fire after they started fighting that kept Saddam's government in power and allowed the Iraqi military to continue to fly armed helicopters within their borders. Not surprisingly, Saddam used his remaining power and those helicopters to brutally suppress the rebellions we encouraged killing tens of thousands and making refugees out of millions as they had to flee to Turkey and Iran. But hey, at least a month after the uprisings were completely crushed we and the UN instituted a No Fly Zone over the North and South. Too little, too late for all the people we made empty promises to who ended up dead, wounded, or exiled.

Obama did about all you can do unless you're willing to pledge military support. He criticized the crackdown on the protesters, and he stated support for their cause without making promises we can't keep:
______________________________

Obama's remarks were similar to those given regarding clashes in the wake of Iran's disputed presidential election. Obama said Monday that those "unjustly detained" should be released and called on Iran to respect the rights of its people.

As he did over the summer, Obama made clear that the United States' support for the protesters is in spirit and that he considers the unrest to be an internal issue that will work itself out for the better.

"What's taking place within Iran is not about the United States or any other country. It's about the Iranian people and their aspirations for justice and a better life for themselves," Obama said. "We will continue to bear witness to the extraordinary events that are taking place there. And I'm confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice."

______________________________

As far as the other things go, how do you know the CIA is not attacking Iran's internet infrastructure with the goal of assisting the protesters in communicating with one another and the world at large? What, do you think they just announce that stuff in a press conference for everyone to find out? I'm sure they have assisted them a great deal. There's nothing the CIA loves more than futzing around in Iran, and there's the added benefit of developing HumInt resources in-country amongst the protesters to report on Iran's nuclear program and support of terrorist groups.

It's a much more complicated situation than your simplistic "pledge full support to the protesters" comment gives it credit for. We have to walk a thin line between supporting the protesters (which we do, just not enough to go to war for at the moment) and realizing that at the end of the day the Ahmadinejad regime is who we're most likely going to have to continue dealing with for the near future, so we can't afford to completely alienate them either or else we'll get shut out completely on nuclear non-proliferation talks or inspections.
 
I'm jumping on the Picard vote here. He's to safe to be Kirk, he wouldn't lose a Starship, s not Janeway, he's not cool enough to shun Trek and theres no Sisko to vote for.
 
In answer to the question, Obama's more like Picard than Kirk. I'm sure some people consider that an insult, but I don't.

Not that Kirk was worse (I want to avoid the Kirk vs. Picard land mine on this board), it's just that they have different qualities that benefited them in different ways and were very much products of their different eras.

Was all that bullshit an adequate dodge to avoid making a direct comparison? Am I safe?

That being said, I hate to saddle Kirk with the burden, but I can almost see this exchange of dialogue happening on Bush's watch:

 
Obama is like Picard.

Clinton and Kennedy are like Kirk.

Bush is like... Gowron.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top