LOL. I mentioned Picard's Enterprise is often referred to as the flagship of the Federation; bpharma confirmed it, and added that the fact can readily be witnessed on many occasions thru-out ST:TNG. Absolutely true. And I'm not sure why anyone would even want to contest it -- especially so bitterly.
Inconvenient truths often sting, I get that. But your post smacks of angry desperation. And there's no need for that at all; especially since neither I -- nor bpharma, I think -- has any intention to use the 'flagship' matter as evidence of the Federation being primarily a military organization. That is all in your own head. All we said was that there's ample room to conclude that, in ST:TNG at least, there seems to exist a clear amalgamation between civil and military functions of the major ships we see.
Actually, there is. Especially if you have ever played FASA's RPG, and/or read some of the novels, it's made clear, that Starfleet combines both civil & military functions into the same structure. Granted, some branches are more concerned with civil matters, others more with military, but Starfeet as whole, is both.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
This is fallacious thinking. You're failing to see any difference between war mongering and self defense (there IS a difference). Saying "what it takes to win" is intellectually bankrupt, because after the fact, just about any atrocity, no matter how unnecessary or counterproductive, can be blanket justified with this sort of rhetoric.
Nope. Not here, and not in real life. Apartheid, lebensraum, the Great Leap Forward, and many other horrid things have all been justified by your idea. None were necessary, mind you, but were certainly sold as "we need to do this thing because we must survive and can't survive without it!"
It is quite possible to "win" without becoming a monster in just about all dilemmas where winning is possible, outside of course very specific scenarios that modern writers seem so excited about: terrorists with OMG TICKING TIME BOMBS that will only tell you where the bomb is if you torture them, zombie apocalypses that go out of their way to justify barbarism and cruelty to fellow survivors because the writers (and audience) love it that way, and so on.
Okay, MOST of what you cited for examples of "atrocities", were committed during peacetime, not war, for one.
Two, yes, you can win without being a monster. BUT, how's this for an example? (And in a space theme), an enemy fleet show's up on your doorstep. Each ship carries hostages. And not just a few, but a few dozen, or even a few hundred EACH ship. That fleet makes it clear, that if you resist, while they're killing your kids, your women, and your planet, that they will kill some of those hostages over time, til you stop. On top of that, of course, if you destroy an enemy ship, you're killing those hostages. Now, do you resist? Or do you let the enemy commit genocide upon you?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
LOL. I mentioned Picard's Enterprise is often referred to as the flagship of the Federation; bpharma confirmed it, and added that the fact can readily be witnessed on many occasions thru-out ST:TNG. Absolutely true. And I'm not sure why anyone would even want to contest it -- especially so bitterly.
Inconvenient truths often sting, I get that. But your post smacks of angry desperation. And there's no need for that at all; especially since neither I -- nor bpharma, I think -- has any intention to use the 'flagship' matter as evidence of the Federation being primarily a military organization. That is all in your own head. All we said was that there's ample room to conclude that, in ST:TNG at least, there seems to exist a clear amalgamation between civil and military functions of the major ships we see.
Since when does the word "flagship" drastically expand its definition and importance to inflate your entire argument singlehandedly?
I get it, you're riding a rush of self-congratulatory importance here.
Extreme example, but I will hope you see the point. Your entire argument seemingly rides on this "flagship" thing and goes to wild extremes of saber rattling glee because of it.
Okay, MOST of what you cited for examples of "atrocities", were committed during peacetime, not war, for one.
Two, yes, you can win without being a monster. BUT, how's this for an example? (And in a space theme), an enemy fleet show's up on your doorstep. Each ship carries hostages. And not just a few, but a few dozen, or even a few hundred EACH ship. That fleet makes it clear, that if you resist, while they're killing your kids, your women, and your planet, that they will kill some of those hostages over time, til you stop. On top of that, of course, if you destroy an enemy ship, you're killing those hostages. Now, do you resist? Or do you let the enemy commit genocide upon you?
So your answer to my statement of "you don't really HAVE to do these monstrous things outside of a conveniently crafted no-other-way-out writer trap" is to give me... a no-other-way-out writer trap. I may as well tell Michael Jordan that he's a terrible basketball player if he can't make a slam dunk while blindfolded through an obstacle course I set up in my backyard.
If you can't follow the metaphor, I'll say it plainly: you're creating plot devices that demand your "raaargh we are at war everything is justified" solution. Like some of the later writers for Deep Space Nine, that I assume you were a huge fan of because they hated the Federation and Starfleet thing so badly they all but retconned it as they went.
All right, on a final note since you do seem to really insist that wartime is the equivalent of a "get of out everything free" card: the Bataan death marches. The Malmedy slaughter. The **** of Nanking. Are these justified because of the "we are at war" thing?
If you can't see a way to survive/win without that sort of thing, you're not looking hard enough and you're enjoying a little too much grimdark fiction for your own good.
Oh, on a final note, note that the atrocities were not necessarily done by the "winners" either, even if those who justified them certainly thought along the lines of "we have to do these things because WE ARE AT WAR".
Extreme example, but I will hope you see the point. Your entire argument seemingly rides on this "flagship" thing and goes to wild extremes of saber rattling glee because of it.
This is true. A flagship is not purely a military definition.
The term flagship is used to focus on what is most important, i.e. U.S.S. Enterprise, because it is the newest, most fancy vehicle to be prideful of, or it could be coca cola company showing of their flagship... I can guess you know what that is. No, not a vehicle, but a bottle with some bubbly stuff in.
Regarding Enterprise, it would be quite important in diplomatic sense to use, to show how advanced humans are. Much like today, where important business meetings are held in respectable places, not in some dungy bodega in the sticks.
In this sense a flagship for diplomatic matters. During battle, a jupiter class dreadnought would propably be the military version of a flagship. Where some commander of a fleet is directing the strategy.
Wow we got some people who just can't wrap their heads around a basic concept. Yes you do all you can to talk your way out of a fight. But sometimes the only way to peace is on the other side of war.
It may not be the way you want, or what you want, but sometimes that's what is going to happen.
Take WWII. US didn't want in. Hell we stayed out cept for selling goods. But even the talking heads new in the US, sooner or later we'd be dragged in. Just a matter of when.
Plus further some of the worst atrocites in that war, done by the ALLIES. Dresden, carpent bombed for a week straight. 80,000 people killed. Bombing of japan and the fire bombing of Tokoyo. 100,000 people killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki Tragedies, but ended the war which had we invaded would have made a worse tragedy.
I'm not saying any of it was justified, but sometimes you have to put peace aside. Sometimes you have to pick up that weapon and fight for your life. Cause sometimes the other side doesn't feel like negotiating, doesn't feel like talking. They just want to walk in, kill you all and take your things or better yet subjugate you to slavery.
Sorry if words fail, you're damn right I'm picking up a phaser, manning battle stations and fighting for all I hold dear.
All of us sleep good at night, because rough men and women are ready to do harm on our part when called for. Might want to remember that.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Wow we got some people who just can't wrap their heads around a basic concept. Yes you do all you can to talk your way out of a fight. But sometimes the only way to peace is on the other side of war.
It may not be the way you want, or what you want, but sometimes that's what is going to happen.
Take WWII. US didn't want in. Hell we stayed out cept for selling goods. But even the talking heads new in the US, sooner or later we'd be dragged in. Just a matter of when.
Plus further some of the worst atrocites in that war, done by the ALLIES. Dresden, carpent bombed for a week straight. 80,000 people killed. Bombing of japan and the fire bombing of Tokoyo. 100,000 people killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki Tragedies, but ended the war which had we invaded would have made a worse tragedy.
I'm not saying any of it was justified, but sometimes you have to put peace aside. Sometimes you have to pick up that weapon and fight for your life. Cause sometimes the other side doesn't feel like negotiating, doesn't feel like talking. They just want to walk in, kill you all and take your things or better yet subjugate you to slavery.
Sorry if words fail, you're damn right I'm picking up a phaser, manning battle stations and fighting for all I hold dear.
All of us sleep good at night, because rough men and women are ready to do harm on our part when called for. Might want to remember that.
You're using that old rhetorical magic trick again: because one thing goes, all things go.
Whether you want to make a "ticking time bomb"/"they got your family!"/whatever scenario or not, no one here ruled out self defense, or for that matter defensive war.
The thing is you might very well be of the mindset, quite fashionable these days I might add, that war itself is some kind of boon that ought to be the first, not the last, answer to disagreements.
No one made the claim that war is absolutely positively out of the question in every situation. The thing is, as soon as war is on the table, a good number of posters in this very thread think it's the green light to any number of horrid or even barbaric actions. Because war. And because it looks cool in video games, I assume.
I think a big problem with this thread is binary thinking.
By binary, I mean absolute statements, ignoring all middle ground, all analog solutions. War/peace. Kill/killed, and so on.
This binary thinking also involves gross misrepresentations not only of the Federation and Starfleet as portrayed in most of the franchise (yeah yeah Ronald D Moore and his small circle of likeminded writers aside). It involves fixating on exceptions and calling them the rule. Look at "In a Pale Moonlight." Sisko does a very dishonest thing and tries to justify it to himself with pragmatism, and thanks to the writers that wrote it, it was the only solution, the only way to solve the problem they conjured up.
And look at this thread. Look at all the "what would you do?" statements, bordering and in some cases exceeding the grimdark pragmatism put up by that "48" TV show. We get it. You can make dilemmas of your own design that gleefully force people to be monsters or be killed by monsters.
Trek isn't grimdark, no matter how hard you smear it with mud and selectiely ignore 90% of its episodes and writing. Nor is the Federation quite what some are portraying it to be here. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than what we have now.
You're using that old rhetorical magic trick again: because one thing goes, all things go.
Whether you want to make a "ticking time bomb"/"they got your family!"/whatever scenario or not, no one here ruled out self defense, or for that matter defensive war.
The thing is you might very well be of the mindset, quite fashionable these days I might add, that war itself is some kind of boon that ought to be the first, not the last, answer to disagreements.
No one made the claim that war is absolutely positively out of the question in every situation. The thing is, as soon as war is on the table, a good number of posters in this very thread think it's the green light to any number of horrid or even barbaric actions. Because war. And because it looks cool in video games, I assume.
Umm did you read. I was actually CONDEMNING barbaric actions. This is coming from a guy who did 7 years as a US Marine. Take for example the dropping of the atomic bombs. HORRID things done. But had they not been done, MILLIONS would of died in the eventual invasion of japan.
Just to assault the small Island of Shikoku, projected 1 MILLION US casualties, it was estimated that the Japanese casualties were going to be at a MINIMUM 5 times higher. I think the atomic bombing of Japan was justified don't ya think?
Now move forwards to the situation at the dyson sphere. Omega particles, it shuts down warp travel over entire sectors. TRILLONS of beings affected, possibly killed, civilization as Star Trek knows it grinds to a halt, federation, klingon and romulan governments collapse, nothing gets done and we revert to sublight hundreds of years travel.
Sorry with that kind of apocalypse looming with what the Voth are messing around with, sorry I'm a firm believer of shoot first and don't bother asking questions. There's a reason that directive exists. And it's a damn good reason.
So you can stick to your principals, or watch civilization as you know it fall. What's your choice?
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
Umm did you read. I was actually CONDEMNING barbaric actions. This is coming from a guy who did 7 years as a US Marine. Take for example the dropping of the atomic bombs. HORRID things done. But had they not been done, MILLIONS would of died in the eventual invasion of japan.
Just to assault the small Island of Shikoku, projected 1 MILLION US casualties, it was estimated that the Japanese casualties were going to be at a MINIMUM 5 times higher. I think the atomic bombing of Japan was justified don't ya think?
Now move forwards to the situation at the dyson sphere. Omega particles, it shuts down warp travel over entire sectors. TRILLONS of beings affected, possibly killed, civilization as Star Trek knows it grinds to a halt, federation, klingon and romulan governments collapse, nothing gets done and we revert to sublight hundreds of years travel.
Sorry with that kind of apocalypse looming with what the Voth are messing around with, sorry I'm a firm believer of shoot first and don't bother asking questions. There's a reason that directive exists. And it's a damn good reason.
So you can stick to your principals, or watch civilization as you know it fall. What's your choice?
Don't play the military serviceman card with me. I served too, and came out a lot worse for the wear and would prefer not to talk about that further. Don't expect me to be in awe. What I saw was ugly, brutal, and it shook me pretty good.
And yet again, below that part, we're looking at a strawman of giant proportions. Where did I say that you absolutely, positively, can do nothing more than write strongly written letters and wag your finger at hostile aggressors?
I assume you remember the Uniform Code of Military Justice, across all service branches. The Geneva Conventions. I assume the General Orders weren't all that different either. There is a particularly relevant part in there about refusing to carry out an illegal order that violates the rest of what the soldier stands for.
You're taking the easy way out here. Because some acts of destruction worked out and seemed tidy in history books, everything goes so long as someone says "we are at war" before it's rubber-stamped. No. I disagree.
I believe in self defense, and I believe in defending the defenseless. I do not believe in war as an easy way out or a first line of action against other nations, or in Trek, other species.
I know I am not the only one. In the military or otherwise. Spare me your "48" inspired doomsday clock scenarios. This is fiction, written by writers of fiction, and they could very well write a diplomatic solution if they wanted to (and in a way, they did, in the Voth dissidents helping to sabotage the Omega particle projects).
Wow we got some people who just can't wrap their heads around a basic concept. Yes you do all you can to talk your way out of a fight. But sometimes the only way to peace is on the other side of war.
It may not be the way you want, or what you want, but sometimes that's what is going to happen.
Take WWII. US didn't want in. Hell we stayed out cept for selling goods. But even the talking heads new in the US, sooner or later we'd be dragged in. Just a matter of when.
Plus further some of the worst atrocites in that war, done by the ALLIES. Dresden, carpent bombed for a week straight. 80,000 people killed. Bombing of japan and the fire bombing of Tokoyo. 100,000 people killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki Tragedies, but ended the war which had we invaded would have made a worse tragedy.
I'm not saying any of it was justified, but sometimes you have to put peace aside. Sometimes you have to pick up that weapon and fight for your life. Cause sometimes the other side doesn't feel like negotiating, doesn't feel like talking. They just want to walk in, kill you all and take your things or better yet subjugate you to slavery.
Sorry if words fail, you're damn right I'm picking up a phaser, manning battle stations and fighting for all I hold dear.
All of us sleep good at night, because rough men and women are ready to do harm on our part when called for. Might want to remember that.
And what is more scary, is that some (to many) people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of not killing more than neccesary. Take hiroshima and nagasaki. I strongly believe one bomb would be enough. To stop a war, it is rarely neccesary to bomb a civilization back to the stoneages to make a point. Total war has never solved anything, but create more casualties. In those instances. Go to the core of the problem. Why did we experience Iraq I and II? I'll tell you. Instead of finishing the task of removing Saddam, they killed soldiers he had sent out. The coalition let him off, just to go back a little later because he wouldn't stop.
Now, the 'funny' thing is that politicians has decided that it is not allowed to send in special forces to take out one guy (politician). -It could be used against them, all of the sudden.
But i firmly believes that a lot of wars could be stopped before the turn into a catastrophy.
I believe in talk first, then shoot, but ofc i is a balance to everything.
And what is more scary, is that some (to many) people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of not killing more than neccesary. Take hiroshima and nagasaki. I strongly believe one bomb would be enough. To stop a war, it is rarely neccesary to bomb a civilization back to the stoneages to make a point. Total war has never solved anything, but create more casualties. In those instances. Go to the core of the problem. Why did we experience Iraq I and II? I'll tell you. Instead of finishing the task of removing Saddam, they killed soldiers he had sent out. The coalition let him off, just to go back a little later because he wouldn't stop.
Now, the 'funny' thing is that politicians has decided that it is not allowed to send in special forces to take out one guy (politician). -It could be used against them, all of the sudden.
But i firmly believes that a lot of wars could be stopped before the turn into a catastrophy.
I believe in talk first, then shoot, but ofc i is a balance to everything.
That is exactly what I was advocating: balance, measured response.
Of course that's given me plenty of replies implying what a hopelessly naieve hippie I'd be (I know some real life hippies, nice people and one makes and brews fantastic tea blends) if I didn't follow some internet tough guy "shoot first ask questions later" script of their choosing when it comes to conflict resolution or solving dilemmas in a Trek universe, or for that matter elsewhere.
It's quite obvious from this thread that the floodgates open for some people as soon as war is on the table. It seems to justify everything so long as one's opponent is dehumanized (and in Trek, they are literally not human most of the time so that makes it easy for these guys).
Don't play the military serviceman card with me. I served too, and came out a lot worse for the wear and would prefer not to talk about that further. Don't expect me to be in awe. What I saw was ugly, brutal, and it shook me pretty good.
And yet again, below that part, we're looking at a strawman of giant proportions. Where did I say that you absolutely, positively, can do nothing more than write strongly written letters and wag your finger at hostile aggressors?
I assume you remember the Uniform Code of Military Justice, across all service branches. The Geneva Conventions. I assume the General Orders weren't all that different either. There is a particularly relevant part in there about refusing to carry out an illegal order that violates the rest of what the soldier stands for.
You're taking the easy way out here. Because some acts of destruction worked out and seemed tidy in history books, everything goes so long as someone says "we are at war" before it's rubber-stamped. No. I disagree.
I believe in self defense, and I believe in defending the defenseless. I do not believe in war as an easy way out or a first line of action against other nations, or in Trek, other species.
I know I am not the only one. In the military or otherwise. Spare me your "48" inspired doomsday clock scenarios. This is fiction, written by writers of fiction, and they could very well write a diplomatic solution if they wanted to (and in a way, they did, in the Voth dissidents helping to sabotage the Omega particle projects).
I wasn't playing the service man card. -facepalm- you are again COMPLETELY misunderstanding what I am saying. I CONDEMNED THOSE ACTIONS. Would I have tried talking to the Voth first. Yeah probably.
Take Iraq 2004. I'd of NEVER launched the invasion simply because Saddam laughed at us. WMD bent was a joke. Afghanistan. Well that was going to happen. We were attacked and we went in to get the people responsible.
But know what the funny part about afghanistan is? Could of been avoided in 1989. Spent basically 10 years funding the very people who turned around and launched the invasion on us. Once Russia was kicked out we basically turned off the tap and ignored them. Had we spent just a tad more money [since we already spent a billion dollars], spent like 15 million more and provided basic humanitarian aid, 9/11 may not of happened.
Going back to the Voth, yes a strawman situation, but guess what it's the one that got handed to us in this season. Voth, messing around with something that NOBODY, not even the Borg can control, that can stop all faster than light travel across entire quadrants and Voth don't seem particularly interested in talking.
Sorry this season we literally got handed an "all costs" situation. And you want to back down and try and talk? That's silly.
So continue to say straw man. I'm dealing with what we called in the military "facts on the ground."
1. Voth have no wish to try diplomacy.
2. Messing around with a particle that can destroy FTL travel across quadrants.
3. Many years before this, many fine people sat down and discussed WHAT DO WE DO if we get this situation. Omega directive wasn't written for craps and giggles. Hell even the Klingons, all balls no brains goes "oh no". One of the most militarant species in the known galaxy goes "Oh TRIBBLE." Ya know the people we are at WAR WITH. That should tell you something.
4. You can choose to disobey a direct order. Be stripped of your command, have a courtmarshal, make it a 3 ring circus about your beliefs. Not really going to stop what has to be done. Granted I don't like the order, but since we are all in that hot seat you have to balance the fact that the decisions in this situation[granted handed to us by writers, but it's the situation you face] of your morals, vs the continuation and freedom of many more civilizations. I mean hell LOGIC dictates needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the 1. There are billions hell trillions of people who depend on FTL travel, and billions more who are still developing warp travel who haven't even gotten there yet.
So spare me the "straw-man" TRIBBLE. I'm dealing with facts on the ground handed to me by the game. Facts are, belligerent who has no real wish to talk is messing with a doomsday substance. Sorry shooting first and maybe I'll ask questions later.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
That is exactly what I was advocating: balance, measured response.
Of course that's given me plenty of replies implying what a hopelessly naieve hippie I'd be (I know some real life hippies, nice people and one makes and brews fantastic tea blends) if I didn't follow some internet tough guy "shoot first ask questions later" script of their choosing when it comes to conflict resolution or solving dilemmas in a Trek universe, or for that matter elsewhere.
It's quite obvious from this thread that the floodgates open for some people as soon as war is on the table. It seems to justify everything so long as one's opponent is dehumanized (and in Trek, they are literally not human most of the time so that makes it easy for these guys).
I personally have the impression that many people aren't comfortable with what Star Trek portrayed. I mean they get all the action that's fun and exciting on screen and in games and I'm not even arguing against that. But it just seems to be a concept way too absurd that all of that is done by a force like Starfleet which has a completely different mindset behind it. As if not wearing 21st century uniforms, shouting, saluting and space marining would somehow diminish ones capability of dealing with conflict. It is that glorification of all out militarism that I personally don't get. Virtually every sci-fi franchise in existance does that, the other "big" franchise even turned into a kid's show promoting warfare as something desireable. I'm no pacifist or "hippie" (although I do have a liking for making tea ) but that's just something that tastes bitter to me.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Just because another specie isn't familiar with the geneva convention, doesn't nullify its purpose. If someone is not following it, doesn't mean you shouldn't.
Regarding infringements... The UFP, and their allies are using enemy weaponry and armour.
That is prohibited. Get caught doing that, and you might end up getting a 'sleeping pill'.
Good god it's a tactic to use enemy weapons and armor, it's called blending in. The lil baby federation is finally waking up and flexing their military muscle. My species is my family, the voth hate my species, and are gonna use the omega particles do destroy us. Is there anything you would not do for your family?
Sorry this season we literally got handed an "all costs" situation. And you want to back down and try and talk? That's silly.
So continue to say straw man. I'm dealing with what we called in the military "facts on the ground."
1. Voth have no wish to try diplomacy.
2. Messing around with a particle that can destroy FTL travel across quadrants.
3. Many years before this, many fine people sat down and discussed WHAT DO WE DO if we get this situation. Omega directive wasn't written for craps and giggles. Hell even the Klingons, all balls no brains goes "oh no". One of the most militarant species in the known galaxy goes "Oh TRIBBLE." Ya know the people we are at WAR WITH. That should tell you something.
4. You can choose to disobey a direct order. Be stripped of your command, have a courtmarshal, make it a 3 ring circus about your beliefs. Not really going to stop what has to be done. Granted I don't like the order, but since we are all in that hot seat you have to balance the fact that the decisions in this situation[granted handed to us by writers, but it's the situation you face] of your morals, vs the continuation and freedom of many more civilizations. I mean hell LOGIC dictates needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the 1. There are billions hell trillions of people who depend on FTL travel, and billions more who are still developing warp travel who haven't even gotten there.
This is good. It opens up a way for Cryptic to handle further development of the voth story.
There are two ways of doing it. One, a STF queue where guns are blazing to take out the dictatorship that suppress the voth community with their doctrine, and two, a mission based on diplomacy. It would be nice to have the choice, instead of just guns blazing.
I wasn't playing the service man card. -facepalm- you are again COMPLETELY misunderstanding what I am saying. I CONDEMNED THOSE ACTIONS. Would I have tried talking to the Voth first. Yeah probably.
Take Iraq 2004. I'd of NEVER launched the invasion simply because Saddam laughed at us. WMD bent was a joke. Afghanistan. Well that was going to happen. We were attacked and we went in to get the people responsible.
But know what the funny part about afghanistan is? Could of been avoided in 1989. Spent basically 10 years funding the very people who turned around and launched the invasion on us. Once Russia was kicked out we basically turned off the tap and ignored them. Had we spent just a tad more money [since we already spent a billion dollars], spent like 15 million more and provided basic humanitarian aid, 9/11 may not of happened.
Going back to the Voth, yes a strawman situation, but guess what it's the one that got handed to us in this season. Voth, messing around with something that NOBODY, not even the Borg can control, that can stop all faster than light travel across entire quadrants and Voth don't seem particularly interested in talking.
Sorry this season we literally got handed an "all costs" situation. And you want to back down and try and talk? That's silly.
So continue to say straw man. I'm dealing with what we called in the military "facts on the ground."
1. Voth have no wish to try diplomacy.
2. Messing around with a particle that can destroy FTL travel across quadrants.
3. Many years before this, many fine people sat down and discussed WHAT DO WE DO if we get this situation. Omega directive wasn't written for craps and giggles. Hell even the Klingons, all balls no brains goes "oh no". One of the most militarant species in the known galaxy goes "Oh TRIBBLE." Ya know the people we are at WAR WITH. That should tell you something.
4. You can choose to disobey a direct order. Be stripped of your command, have a courtmarshal, make it a 3 ring circus about your beliefs. Not really going to stop what has to be done. Granted I don't like the order, but since we are all in that hot seat you have to balance the fact that the decisions in this situation[granted handed to us by writers, but it's the situation you face] of your morals, vs the continuation and freedom of many more civilizations. I mean hell LOGIC dictates needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the 1. There are billions hell trillions of people who depend on FTL travel, and billions more who are still developing warp travel who haven't even gotten there yet.
So spare me the "straw-man" TRIBBLE. I'm dealing with facts on the ground handed to me by the game. Facts are, belligerent who has no real wish to talk is messing with a doomsday substance. Sorry shooting first and maybe I'll ask questions later.
*applauds* War is horrible, and the war with the voth portrays that.
1. Voth have no wish to try diplomacy.
2. Messing around with a particle that can destroy FTL travel across quadrants.
3. Many years before this, many fine people sat down and discussed WHAT DO WE DO if we get this situation. Omega directive wasn't written for craps and giggles. Hell even the Klingons, all balls no brains goes "oh no". One of the most militarant species in the known galaxy goes "Oh TRIBBLE." Ya know the people we are at WAR WITH. That should tell you something.
4. You can choose to disobey a direct order. Be stripped of your command, have a courtmarshal, make it a 3 ring circus about your beliefs. Not really going to stop what has to be done. Granted I don't like the order, but since we are all in that hot seat you have to balance the fact that the decisions in this situation[granted handed to us by writers, but it's the situation you face] of your morals, vs the continuation and freedom of many more civilizations. I mean hell LOGIC dictates needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the 1. There are billions hell trillions of people who depend on FTL travel, and billions more who are still developing warp travel who haven't even gotten there yet.
So spare me the "straw-man" TRIBBLE. I'm dealing with facts on the ground handed to me by the game. Facts are, belligerent who has no real wish to talk is messing with a doomsday substance. Sorry shooting first and maybe I'll ask questions later.
So if we exchange Omega Particles with Oil and the Voth with any nation holding substantial reserves - you just justified to invade any such nation and kill their people, because not handing it over to you as you demand also might affect billions and could disrupt your travelling habits?
So if we exchange Omega Particles with Oil and the Voth with any nation holding substantial reserves - you just justified to invade any such nation and kill their people, because not handing it over to you as you demand also might affect billions and could disrupt your travelling habits?
Apples and oranges. The real argument would be trade oil for Dilithium. And No I wouldn't.
What the REAL thing would be trade Thermo Nuclear Weapons for Omega particles and said nation was pointing them at my nation and says "Surrender or die."
That would be a bit more of what we are dealing with.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
So your answer to my statement of "you don't really HAVE to do these monstrous things outside of a conveniently crafted no-other-way-out writer trap" is to give me... a no-other-way-out writer trap. I may as well tell Michael Jordan that he's a terrible basketball player if he can't make a slam dunk while blindfolded through an obstacle course I set up in my backyard.
If you can't follow the metaphor, I'll say it plainly: you're creating plot devices that demand your "raaargh we are at war everything is justified" solution. Like some of the later writers for Deep Space Nine, that I assume you were a huge fan of because they hated the Federation and Starfleet thing so badly they all but retconned it as they went.
All right, on a final note since you do seem to really insist that wartime is the equivalent of a "get of out everything free" card: the Bataan death marches. The Malmedy slaughter. The **** of Nanking. Are these justified because of the "we are at war" thing?
If you can't see a way to survive/win without that sort of thing, you're not looking hard enough and you're enjoying a little too much grimdark fiction for your own good.
Oh, on a final note, note that the atrocities were not necessarily done by the "winners" either, even if those who justified them certainly thought along the lines of "we have to do these things because WE ARE AT WAR".
Hardly. I'm picking an action that an unethical enemy would likely take. So again, I ask the same question.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Hardly. I'm picking an action that an unethical enemy would likely take. So again, I ask the same question.
You're asking the same question and you're getting the same answer.
You made a custom-built "unethical" enemy that you assume is so common in Trek or elsewhere that it justifies your moral relativism and demands a do-or-die response that panders to it.
Even Picard knew when to take a stand and say "no, enough." and defend his ship and crew. That wasn't even the issue. He wouldn't have to tear off fingernails or shoot prisoners in the head.
I wasn't playing the service man card. -facepalm- you are again COMPLETELY misunderstanding what I am saying. I CONDEMNED THOSE ACTIONS. Would I have tried talking to the Voth first. Yeah probably.
Take Iraq 2004. I'd of NEVER launched the invasion simply because Saddam laughed at us. WMD bent was a joke. Afghanistan. Well that was going to happen. We were attacked and we went in to get the people responsible.
But know what the funny part about afghanistan is? Could of been avoided in 1989. Spent basically 10 years funding the very people who turned around and launched the invasion on us. Once Russia was kicked out we basically turned off the tap and ignored them. Had we spent just a tad more money [since we already spent a billion dollars], spent like 15 million more and provided basic humanitarian aid, 9/11 may not of happened.
Going back to the Voth, yes a strawman situation, but guess what it's the one that got handed to us in this season. Voth, messing around with something that NOBODY, not even the Borg can control, that can stop all faster than light travel across entire quadrants and Voth don't seem particularly interested in talking.
Sorry this season we literally got handed an "all costs" situation. And you want to back down and try and talk? That's silly.
So continue to say straw man. I'm dealing with what we called in the military "facts on the ground."
1. Voth have no wish to try diplomacy.
2. Messing around with a particle that can destroy FTL travel across quadrants.
3. Many years before this, many fine people sat down and discussed WHAT DO WE DO if we get this situation. Omega directive wasn't written for craps and giggles. Hell even the Klingons, all balls no brains goes "oh no". One of the most militarant species in the known galaxy goes "Oh TRIBBLE." Ya know the people we are at WAR WITH. That should tell you something.
4. You can choose to disobey a direct order. Be stripped of your command, have a courtmarshal, make it a 3 ring circus about your beliefs. Not really going to stop what has to be done. Granted I don't like the order, but since we are all in that hot seat you have to balance the fact that the decisions in this situation[granted handed to us by writers, but it's the situation you face] of your morals, vs the continuation and freedom of many more civilizations. I mean hell LOGIC dictates needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the 1. There are billions hell trillions of people who depend on FTL travel, and billions more who are still developing warp travel who haven't even gotten there yet.
So spare me the "straw-man" TRIBBLE. I'm dealing with facts on the ground handed to me by the game. Facts are, belligerent who has no real wish to talk is messing with a doomsday substance. Sorry shooting first and maybe I'll ask questions later.
You complain about strawmen then immediately make a strawman of me and assume you know what my response would be to the Voth as presented in this game.
So spare me the straw man TRIBBLE. Yes, I ask you again.
*applauds* War is horrible, and the war with the voth portrays that.
War is "horrible" but by and large fetishized by people that haven't fought it but grew up with it in abstract, spoken about, read about, and seen on TV and in fiction without participation.
And so what is supposed to be horrid, but sometimes demanded of us becomes a sort of "easy button" for conflict resolution, and for the sociopathic, it even becomes a default, desired state of affairs.
That is exactly what I was advocating: balance, measured response.
Of course that's given me plenty of replies implying what a hopelessly naieve hippie I'd be (I know some real life hippies, nice people and one makes and brews fantastic tea blends) if I didn't follow some internet tough guy "shoot first ask questions later" script of their choosing when it comes to conflict resolution or solving dilemmas in a Trek universe, or for that matter elsewhere.
It's quite obvious from this thread that the floodgates open for some people as soon as war is on the table. It seems to justify everything so long as one's opponent is dehumanized (and in Trek, they are literally not human most of the time so that makes it easy for these guys).
Ok, first of all, to jump into your discussion over here, balance is not a bad thing. In fact, as long as one recognizes what one has to do, and follow it through with conviction, means he or she will likely be key in getting something accomplished.
On another thing, there is a time and place for shoot first, let the gods sort them out. There's also a time and place for, let's talk this to death, so we can get this problem resolved. The trick is, to know WHEN to do either. Some enemies are that way because of a misunderstanding, that has a hope of being cleared up. However, others, aren't.
Also, while yes, it's common to dehumanize your target, sometimes it has to be done, just to retain your sanity. And in the Trek world, whether or not the target's actual species is human or not, to me, would be irrelevant, on whether they need killing or not. If they're intelligent, and have a respect for life, and are willing to work towards a peaceful solution, then by all means, discuss away, get the diplomats in on it, as long as a reasonable outcome for both sides is achieved. But if all they wish for, is to wipe you out, how do they deserve any more mercy, or any more respect, than to have that performed upon them?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Apples and oranges. The real argument would be trade oil for Dilithium. And No I wouldn't.
What the REAL thing would be trade Thermo Nuclear Weapons for Omega particles and said nation was pointing them at my nation and says "Surrender or die."
That would be a bit more of what we are dealing with.
Omega particles just remove warp travel, they don't kill you (unless you're sitting right on top of one if it destabilizes). And for all we know the Voth consider using them to defend themselves against an invading force - possibly the Borg. So it's more like "Retreat or be stuck." That's much more gentle than what the US did to Japan to end WWII, yet we consider the latter justified, while we do anything to stop the Voth.
This is good. It opens up a way for Cryptic to handle further development of the voth story.
There are two ways of doing it. One, a STF queue where guns are blazing to take out the dictatorship that suppress the voth community with their doctrine, and two, a mission based on diplomacy. It would be nice to have the choice, instead of just guns blazing.
It may have been nice, to have the option.
However, the diplomacy option is non-existent. So you have to deal with the cards handed to you. Whether you like it or not.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
You complain about strawmen then immediately make a strawman of me and assume you know what my response would be to the Voth as presented in this game.
So spare me the straw man TRIBBLE. Yes, I ask you again.
Ok I'll make this plain. If I could talk my way out of this situation I'd HAPPILY do it. But facts on the ground as I pointed out well that doesn't work.
I mean it's like this and yes it's an all costs situation. You are standing guard over a nuke, a terrorist comes in trying to take or better yet set it off. I pull my gun and tell him "stop or I am going to shoot you, only warning." He continues I fire.
I would of kindly asked the Voth not to mess with a substance that could end life as we know it. Destroy something that many in the Trek universe take for granted but don't realize how badly we need it.
I'd give him or them the chance. Then I'm pulling the trigger. It's that simple. I'd try to keep body counts to a minimum. And I'm not advocating torture, or other barbaric things. I'd personally sign up for the court marshal of those people.
But unarmed shuttles running off with god knows how many omega particles. I'd give them the option of surrender, then I'm destroying those shuttles.
Sorry, I will NOT allow anybody with that kind of destructive force to get away. Not happening. God knows what would happen if I let them get away.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
So if we exchange Omega Particles with Oil and the Voth with any nation holding substantial reserves - you just justified to invade any such nation and kill their people, because not handing it over to you as you demand also might affect billions and could disrupt your travelling habits?
LACK of oil may disrupt my travel habits. Merely experimenting with oil will not have that affect. So...try again, your comparison doesn't hold water.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
You're asking the same question and you're getting the same answer.
You made a custom-built "unethical" enemy that you assume is so common in Trek or elsewhere that it justifies your moral relativism and demands a do-or-die response that panders to it.
Even Picard knew when to take a stand and say "no, enough." and defend his ship and crew. That wasn't even the issue. He wouldn't have to tear off fingernails or shoot prisoners in the head.
That tells me all I need to know. You'd stall, and watch your planet burn for your sacred so-called principles. Nice knowing ya! (*Watches as amalefactor's planet get's glassed*)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Ok, first of all, to jump into your discussion over here, balance is not a bad thing. In fact, as long as one recognizes what one has to do, and follow it through with conviction, means he or she will likely be key in getting something accomplished.
On another thing, there is a time and place for shoot first, let the gods sort them out. There's also a time and place for, let's talk this to death, so we can get this problem resolved. The trick is, to know WHEN to do either. Some enemies are that way because of a misunderstanding, that has a hope of being cleared up. However, others, aren't.
Also, while yes, it's common to dehumanize your target, sometimes it has to be done, just to retain your sanity. And in the Trek world, whether or not the target's actual species is human or not, to me, would be irrelevant, on whether they need killing or not. If they're intelligent, and have a respect for life, and are willing to work towards a peaceful solution, then by all means, discuss away, get the diplomats in on it, as long as a reasonable outcome for both sides is achieved. But if all they wish for, is to wipe you out, how do they deserve any more mercy, or any more respect, than to have that performed upon them?
I'm not seeing the "sanity" that you're claiming to protect by saying that some enemies have to be dehumanized and destroyed relentlessly. In fiction there might be some give here, but even then, you're stretching quite a bit.
You sound no different than the so-called monsters you claim you need to destroy if you're using the exact same methods and methodology. Sounds more like a game of hands-down than anything else.
Face it. You have a point of view of life that is not necessarily a tight fit with Trek, even with the more recent versions and reimaginings. That's where a lot of this rings hollow in a Trek discussion.
Comments
Actually, there is. Especially if you have ever played FASA's RPG, and/or read some of the novels, it's made clear, that Starfleet combines both civil & military functions into the same structure. Granted, some branches are more concerned with civil matters, others more with military, but Starfeet as whole, is both.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Okay, MOST of what you cited for examples of "atrocities", were committed during peacetime, not war, for one.
Two, yes, you can win without being a monster. BUT, how's this for an example? (And in a space theme), an enemy fleet show's up on your doorstep. Each ship carries hostages. And not just a few, but a few dozen, or even a few hundred EACH ship. That fleet makes it clear, that if you resist, while they're killing your kids, your women, and your planet, that they will kill some of those hostages over time, til you stop. On top of that, of course, if you destroy an enemy ship, you're killing those hostages. Now, do you resist? Or do you let the enemy commit genocide upon you?
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Since when does the word "flagship" drastically expand its definition and importance to inflate your entire argument singlehandedly?
I get it, you're riding a rush of self-congratulatory importance here.
Know who else had a flagship? http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/news-releases/Hundreds-visit-new-Greenpeace-flagship-on-first-weekend-in-New-York-City1/
Extreme example, but I will hope you see the point. Your entire argument seemingly rides on this "flagship" thing and goes to wild extremes of saber rattling glee because of it.
So your answer to my statement of "you don't really HAVE to do these monstrous things outside of a conveniently crafted no-other-way-out writer trap" is to give me... a no-other-way-out writer trap. I may as well tell Michael Jordan that he's a terrible basketball player if he can't make a slam dunk while blindfolded through an obstacle course I set up in my backyard.
If you can't follow the metaphor, I'll say it plainly: you're creating plot devices that demand your "raaargh we are at war everything is justified" solution. Like some of the later writers for Deep Space Nine, that I assume you were a huge fan of because they hated the Federation and Starfleet thing so badly they all but retconned it as they went.
All right, on a final note since you do seem to really insist that wartime is the equivalent of a "get of out everything free" card: the Bataan death marches. The Malmedy slaughter. The **** of Nanking. Are these justified because of the "we are at war" thing?
If you can't see a way to survive/win without that sort of thing, you're not looking hard enough and you're enjoying a little too much grimdark fiction for your own good.
Oh, on a final note, note that the atrocities were not necessarily done by the "winners" either, even if those who justified them certainly thought along the lines of "we have to do these things because WE ARE AT WAR".
This is true. A flagship is not purely a military definition.
The term flagship is used to focus on what is most important, i.e. U.S.S. Enterprise, because it is the newest, most fancy vehicle to be prideful of, or it could be coca cola company showing of their flagship... I can guess you know what that is. No, not a vehicle, but a bottle with some bubbly stuff in.
Regarding Enterprise, it would be quite important in diplomatic sense to use, to show how advanced humans are. Much like today, where important business meetings are held in respectable places, not in some dungy bodega in the sticks.
In this sense a flagship for diplomatic matters. During battle, a jupiter class dreadnought would propably be the military version of a flagship. Where some commander of a fleet is directing the strategy.
It may not be the way you want, or what you want, but sometimes that's what is going to happen.
Take WWII. US didn't want in. Hell we stayed out cept for selling goods. But even the talking heads new in the US, sooner or later we'd be dragged in. Just a matter of when.
Plus further some of the worst atrocites in that war, done by the ALLIES. Dresden, carpent bombed for a week straight. 80,000 people killed. Bombing of japan and the fire bombing of Tokoyo. 100,000 people killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki Tragedies, but ended the war which had we invaded would have made a worse tragedy.
I'm not saying any of it was justified, but sometimes you have to put peace aside. Sometimes you have to pick up that weapon and fight for your life. Cause sometimes the other side doesn't feel like negotiating, doesn't feel like talking. They just want to walk in, kill you all and take your things or better yet subjugate you to slavery.
Sorry if words fail, you're damn right I'm picking up a phaser, manning battle stations and fighting for all I hold dear.
All of us sleep good at night, because rough men and women are ready to do harm on our part when called for. Might want to remember that.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
You're using that old rhetorical magic trick again: because one thing goes, all things go.
Whether you want to make a "ticking time bomb"/"they got your family!"/whatever scenario or not, no one here ruled out self defense, or for that matter defensive war.
The thing is you might very well be of the mindset, quite fashionable these days I might add, that war itself is some kind of boon that ought to be the first, not the last, answer to disagreements.
No one made the claim that war is absolutely positively out of the question in every situation. The thing is, as soon as war is on the table, a good number of posters in this very thread think it's the green light to any number of horrid or even barbaric actions. Because war. And because it looks cool in video games, I assume.
By binary, I mean absolute statements, ignoring all middle ground, all analog solutions. War/peace. Kill/killed, and so on.
This binary thinking also involves gross misrepresentations not only of the Federation and Starfleet as portrayed in most of the franchise (yeah yeah Ronald D Moore and his small circle of likeminded writers aside). It involves fixating on exceptions and calling them the rule. Look at "In a Pale Moonlight." Sisko does a very dishonest thing and tries to justify it to himself with pragmatism, and thanks to the writers that wrote it, it was the only solution, the only way to solve the problem they conjured up.
And look at this thread. Look at all the "what would you do?" statements, bordering and in some cases exceeding the grimdark pragmatism put up by that "48" TV show. We get it. You can make dilemmas of your own design that gleefully force people to be monsters or be killed by monsters.
Trek isn't grimdark, no matter how hard you smear it with mud and selectiely ignore 90% of its episodes and writing. Nor is the Federation quite what some are portraying it to be here. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than what we have now.
Umm did you read. I was actually CONDEMNING barbaric actions. This is coming from a guy who did 7 years as a US Marine. Take for example the dropping of the atomic bombs. HORRID things done. But had they not been done, MILLIONS would of died in the eventual invasion of japan.
Just to assault the small Island of Shikoku, projected 1 MILLION US casualties, it was estimated that the Japanese casualties were going to be at a MINIMUM 5 times higher. I think the atomic bombing of Japan was justified don't ya think?
Now move forwards to the situation at the dyson sphere. Omega particles, it shuts down warp travel over entire sectors. TRILLONS of beings affected, possibly killed, civilization as Star Trek knows it grinds to a halt, federation, klingon and romulan governments collapse, nothing gets done and we revert to sublight hundreds of years travel.
Sorry with that kind of apocalypse looming with what the Voth are messing around with, sorry I'm a firm believer of shoot first and don't bother asking questions. There's a reason that directive exists. And it's a damn good reason.
So you can stick to your principals, or watch civilization as you know it fall. What's your choice?
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Don't play the military serviceman card with me. I served too, and came out a lot worse for the wear and would prefer not to talk about that further. Don't expect me to be in awe. What I saw was ugly, brutal, and it shook me pretty good.
And yet again, below that part, we're looking at a strawman of giant proportions. Where did I say that you absolutely, positively, can do nothing more than write strongly written letters and wag your finger at hostile aggressors?
I assume you remember the Uniform Code of Military Justice, across all service branches. The Geneva Conventions. I assume the General Orders weren't all that different either. There is a particularly relevant part in there about refusing to carry out an illegal order that violates the rest of what the soldier stands for.
You're taking the easy way out here. Because some acts of destruction worked out and seemed tidy in history books, everything goes so long as someone says "we are at war" before it's rubber-stamped. No. I disagree.
I believe in self defense, and I believe in defending the defenseless. I do not believe in war as an easy way out or a first line of action against other nations, or in Trek, other species.
I know I am not the only one. In the military or otherwise. Spare me your "48" inspired doomsday clock scenarios. This is fiction, written by writers of fiction, and they could very well write a diplomatic solution if they wanted to (and in a way, they did, in the Voth dissidents helping to sabotage the Omega particle projects).
And what is more scary, is that some (to many) people cannot wrap their heads around the concept of not killing more than neccesary. Take hiroshima and nagasaki. I strongly believe one bomb would be enough. To stop a war, it is rarely neccesary to bomb a civilization back to the stoneages to make a point. Total war has never solved anything, but create more casualties. In those instances. Go to the core of the problem. Why did we experience Iraq I and II? I'll tell you. Instead of finishing the task of removing Saddam, they killed soldiers he had sent out. The coalition let him off, just to go back a little later because he wouldn't stop.
Now, the 'funny' thing is that politicians has decided that it is not allowed to send in special forces to take out one guy (politician). -It could be used against them, all of the sudden.
But i firmly believes that a lot of wars could be stopped before the turn into a catastrophy.
I believe in talk first, then shoot, but ofc i is a balance to everything.
That is exactly what I was advocating: balance, measured response.
Of course that's given me plenty of replies implying what a hopelessly naieve hippie I'd be (I know some real life hippies, nice people and one makes and brews fantastic tea blends) if I didn't follow some internet tough guy "shoot first ask questions later" script of their choosing when it comes to conflict resolution or solving dilemmas in a Trek universe, or for that matter elsewhere.
It's quite obvious from this thread that the floodgates open for some people as soon as war is on the table. It seems to justify everything so long as one's opponent is dehumanized (and in Trek, they are literally not human most of the time so that makes it easy for these guys).
I wasn't playing the service man card. -facepalm- you are again COMPLETELY misunderstanding what I am saying. I CONDEMNED THOSE ACTIONS. Would I have tried talking to the Voth first. Yeah probably.
Take Iraq 2004. I'd of NEVER launched the invasion simply because Saddam laughed at us. WMD bent was a joke. Afghanistan. Well that was going to happen. We were attacked and we went in to get the people responsible.
But know what the funny part about afghanistan is? Could of been avoided in 1989. Spent basically 10 years funding the very people who turned around and launched the invasion on us. Once Russia was kicked out we basically turned off the tap and ignored them. Had we spent just a tad more money [since we already spent a billion dollars], spent like 15 million more and provided basic humanitarian aid, 9/11 may not of happened.
Going back to the Voth, yes a strawman situation, but guess what it's the one that got handed to us in this season. Voth, messing around with something that NOBODY, not even the Borg can control, that can stop all faster than light travel across entire quadrants and Voth don't seem particularly interested in talking.
Sorry this season we literally got handed an "all costs" situation. And you want to back down and try and talk? That's silly.
So continue to say straw man. I'm dealing with what we called in the military "facts on the ground."
1. Voth have no wish to try diplomacy.
2. Messing around with a particle that can destroy FTL travel across quadrants.
3. Many years before this, many fine people sat down and discussed WHAT DO WE DO if we get this situation. Omega directive wasn't written for craps and giggles. Hell even the Klingons, all balls no brains goes "oh no". One of the most militarant species in the known galaxy goes "Oh TRIBBLE." Ya know the people we are at WAR WITH. That should tell you something.
4. You can choose to disobey a direct order. Be stripped of your command, have a courtmarshal, make it a 3 ring circus about your beliefs. Not really going to stop what has to be done. Granted I don't like the order, but since we are all in that hot seat you have to balance the fact that the decisions in this situation[granted handed to us by writers, but it's the situation you face] of your morals, vs the continuation and freedom of many more civilizations. I mean hell LOGIC dictates needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the 1. There are billions hell trillions of people who depend on FTL travel, and billions more who are still developing warp travel who haven't even gotten there yet.
So spare me the "straw-man" TRIBBLE. I'm dealing with facts on the ground handed to me by the game. Facts are, belligerent who has no real wish to talk is messing with a doomsday substance. Sorry shooting first and maybe I'll ask questions later.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I personally have the impression that many people aren't comfortable with what Star Trek portrayed. I mean they get all the action that's fun and exciting on screen and in games and I'm not even arguing against that. But it just seems to be a concept way too absurd that all of that is done by a force like Starfleet which has a completely different mindset behind it. As if not wearing 21st century uniforms, shouting, saluting and space marining would somehow diminish ones capability of dealing with conflict. It is that glorification of all out militarism that I personally don't get. Virtually every sci-fi franchise in existance does that, the other "big" franchise even turned into a kid's show promoting warfare as something desireable. I'm no pacifist or "hippie" (although I do have a liking for making tea
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
This is good. It opens up a way for Cryptic to handle further development of the voth story.
There are two ways of doing it. One, a STF queue where guns are blazing to take out the dictatorship that suppress the voth community with their doctrine, and two, a mission based on diplomacy. It would be nice to have the choice, instead of just guns blazing.
Apples and oranges. The real argument would be trade oil for Dilithium. And No I wouldn't.
What the REAL thing would be trade Thermo Nuclear Weapons for Omega particles and said nation was pointing them at my nation and says "Surrender or die."
That would be a bit more of what we are dealing with.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
Hardly. I'm picking an action that an unethical enemy would likely take. So again, I ask the same question.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
You're asking the same question and you're getting the same answer.
You made a custom-built "unethical" enemy that you assume is so common in Trek or elsewhere that it justifies your moral relativism and demands a do-or-die response that panders to it.
Even Picard knew when to take a stand and say "no, enough." and defend his ship and crew. That wasn't even the issue. He wouldn't have to tear off fingernails or shoot prisoners in the head.
You complain about strawmen then immediately make a strawman of me and assume you know what my response would be to the Voth as presented in this game.
So spare me the straw man TRIBBLE. Yes, I ask you again.
War is "horrible" but by and large fetishized by people that haven't fought it but grew up with it in abstract, spoken about, read about, and seen on TV and in fiction without participation.
And so what is supposed to be horrid, but sometimes demanded of us becomes a sort of "easy button" for conflict resolution, and for the sociopathic, it even becomes a default, desired state of affairs.
Ok, first of all, to jump into your discussion over here, balance is not a bad thing. In fact, as long as one recognizes what one has to do, and follow it through with conviction, means he or she will likely be key in getting something accomplished.
On another thing, there is a time and place for shoot first, let the gods sort them out. There's also a time and place for, let's talk this to death, so we can get this problem resolved. The trick is, to know WHEN to do either. Some enemies are that way because of a misunderstanding, that has a hope of being cleared up. However, others, aren't.
Also, while yes, it's common to dehumanize your target, sometimes it has to be done, just to retain your sanity. And in the Trek world, whether or not the target's actual species is human or not, to me, would be irrelevant, on whether they need killing or not. If they're intelligent, and have a respect for life, and are willing to work towards a peaceful solution, then by all means, discuss away, get the diplomats in on it, as long as a reasonable outcome for both sides is achieved. But if all they wish for, is to wipe you out, how do they deserve any more mercy, or any more respect, than to have that performed upon them?
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Omega particles just remove warp travel, they don't kill you (unless you're sitting right on top of one if it destabilizes). And for all we know the Voth consider using them to defend themselves against an invading force - possibly the Borg. So it's more like "Retreat or be stuck." That's much more gentle than what the US did to Japan to end WWII, yet we consider the latter justified, while we do anything to stop the Voth.
It may have been nice, to have the option.
However, the diplomacy option is non-existent. So you have to deal with the cards handed to you. Whether you like it or not.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
Ok I'll make this plain. If I could talk my way out of this situation I'd HAPPILY do it. But facts on the ground as I pointed out well that doesn't work.
I mean it's like this and yes it's an all costs situation. You are standing guard over a nuke, a terrorist comes in trying to take or better yet set it off. I pull my gun and tell him "stop or I am going to shoot you, only warning." He continues I fire.
I would of kindly asked the Voth not to mess with a substance that could end life as we know it. Destroy something that many in the Trek universe take for granted but don't realize how badly we need it.
I'd give him or them the chance. Then I'm pulling the trigger. It's that simple. I'd try to keep body counts to a minimum. And I'm not advocating torture, or other barbaric things. I'd personally sign up for the court marshal of those people.
But unarmed shuttles running off with god knows how many omega particles. I'd give them the option of surrender, then I'm destroying those shuttles.
Sorry, I will NOT allow anybody with that kind of destructive force to get away. Not happening. God knows what would happen if I let them get away.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
LACK of oil may disrupt my travel habits. Merely experimenting with oil will not have that affect. So...try again, your comparison doesn't hold water.
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
That tells me all I need to know. You'd stall, and watch your planet burn for your sacred so-called principles. Nice knowing ya! (*Watches as amalefactor's planet get's glassed*)
butcher suspect, "What'd you hit me with?"
Temperance Brennan, "A building"
I'm not seeing the "sanity" that you're claiming to protect by saying that some enemies have to be dehumanized and destroyed relentlessly. In fiction there might be some give here, but even then, you're stretching quite a bit.
You sound no different than the so-called monsters you claim you need to destroy if you're using the exact same methods and methodology. Sounds more like a game of hands-down than anything else.
Face it. You have a point of view of life that is not necessarily a tight fit with Trek, even with the more recent versions and reimaginings. That's where a lot of this rings hollow in a Trek discussion.