why are we even arguing about this. Sela has plenty of other crimes that are worth more then enough for life in prison, so whether she is in the right or the wrong it doesn't matter. I understand why a lot of people hate her but I hope we can just forgets about all her crimes if she has a change of heart and leads the Empire to join the Republic and maybe she can become a follower of D'Tan or what I personally hope for and what would seem more likely if that did happen is she would become the leading political rival to D'Tan. Whatever happens I hope she is an active character in Season 11.
I'm sorry, but IMHO a "change of heart" is not enough to forget about multiple serious crimes. "I'm sorry" is just not enough.
why are we even arguing about this. Sela has plenty of other crimes that are worth more then enough for life in prison, so whether she is in the right or the wrong it doesn't matter. I understand why a lot of people hate her but I hope we can just forgets about all her crimes if she has a change of heart and leads the Empire to join the Republic and maybe she can become a follower of D'Tan or what I personally hope for and what would seem more likely if that did happen is she would become the leading political rival to D'Tan. Whatever happens I hope she is an active character in Season 11.
I'm sorry, but IMHO a "change of heart" is not enough to forget about multiple serious crimes. "I'm sorry" is just not enough.
Would you be willing to risk the safety of the galaxy hoping that the ones who slaughtered millions, irrespective of who they are, whether through proxies, or directly, destroyed and devastated planets, and almost committed genocide, would just drop this grudge that they have held against all other life in the galaxy for 200,000 years?
Would you be willing to risk the safety of the galaxy hoping that the ones who slaughtered millions, irrespective of who they are, whether through proxies, or directly, destroyed and devastated planets, and almost committed genocide, would just drop this grudge that they have held against all other life in the galaxy for 200,000 years?
Perhaps you have failed to grasp my previous response. I shall therefore state my response with less Romulan subtlety and more plainly for Human comprehension:
I have no intention of answering the question which you have posed, because the question in question ignores or omits relevant factors involved in the context in which I did what I did -- nor, indeed, am I likely to reply to you further no matter how you improve the question, for I doubt you will ever succeed in formulating it correctly.
Romulan arrogance at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.
(In character) Why, why didn't we destroy them when we had the chance? Kagren's plan was sound. Strategically, it was a good choice, because no one knew about nor cared about the significance of any "world heart", as we weren't supposed to take Iconian tech back with us. Furthermore, given the situation with the alliance in the future, it was a good choice, as any hope of peace failed miserably, and the rest of the Iconians wouldn't forgive us either because of the death of M'tara. Furthermore, given the radical change in the character of Kagran, when we got to the planet I honestly thought he was under Iconian mind control. Furthermore, with his own briefing speech, Kagran pretty much convinced me that regardless on whether it was the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do, it was as Rommel would say, "Krieg ohne Hass". Sela's arguments for it continued to push me toward completing the mission. I kept anticipating the moment that the deed would be done and we could return home, but it never happened. Kagren's constant pestering also didn't help. Truth be told, bringing back all those dead, that is a good thing, but for our survival, the job had to be done. It was literally them or us. We can live up to those ideals when we survive, and the best part, the only ones who will ever know were with me on the planet. It made no sense that we were going to save the Iconians, as the survival of billions is more important than the survival of 12 Iconians. I was angry when Kagren suggested that we were actually going to save them, and I'm almost positive Kagren was under some kind of Iconian mind control. When we returned to normal space, I saw that we were doomed. We had failed, everything we had done was pointless. The Iconians were going to kill us all. Me, my wife, my crew, my children. We would all die anonymous, pointless deaths because Kagren was weak...because I was weak. All because Kagren held onto his honor, despite the fact that he said it would be just a word if we failed. Even if he wasn't under Iconian mind control, this matter has caused major rifts between myself and my chief engineer, who went down to the planet with us, who also happens to be a Klingon. But in the end, I succumbed to the Iconian mind control, just like him. If only Sela, (who I now hold in greater respect than ANY Iconian despite her many, many crimes) had been able to finish the job, we would return to a freer, a safer galaxy.
When I returned, we essentially surrendered. The blasted Iconians somehow knew I had the world heart and they teleported me to their ship. I was furious, I couldn't even use it as a bargaining chip for anything less than "We won't kill you today." But if I didn't, they would have killed me, taken the World heart, and slaughtered the fleet, the Earth, and the galaxy. But even THAT wasn't enough for T'ket, who has more ships than the entire remnants of the fleet, who continues to attack Qo'nos, despite the fact that Kagren was their largest supporter, and the other Iconians, in their insolence, refuse to help us against her, or even try to rein their sister in! I bet Kagren is furious right now as the great hall is still barricaded, and the high council has to have food and water transported in, under the constant Iconian assault. But the absolute worst part about this, my children will have to fight this menace, and their children, and their children's children will have to fight this menace for millennia to follow. And, if by some miracle, we manage to kill T'ket, what will the rest of the Iconians do? This war is not over by a longshot.
I will try to forget this moment, for at the time of saying this, I can't do anything about it. But, If given the opportunity will go back in time and shoot down Kagren's ship myself if I have to! Kagren's hesitation caused us to nearly lose the war, and in that, almost doomed all life in the galaxy. We still have an enemy inside our own borders for crying out loud! And more in the future will have to die because of his cowardice.
Truth be told, these events really are making me question if I should stay in Starfleet, or whether I should retire. Takerra, my first officer has performed admirably throughout the conflicts, whether it was Earth of Qo'nos in danger, she never hesitated in doing her job. She would be an admirable Captain, and I think it's best that the next Captain of the Calico Jack should come from within her crew. But, even about that, I hesitate, is this really how it's going to end? People need me, and Starfleet will need help rebuilding, and they won't wait for me to make up my mind about retiring, so just as my wife worked to rebuild Betazed after the Dominion war when she was young, now I will help to rebuild the Federation.
But, in the meantime, I recieved another invitation to join Section 31, last time they tried to recruit me, I flat denied it. But now, seeing what foolishness can come from over-valuing things like honor, and not seeing the big picture, this one is much harder to refuse. I will not say no, but I'm not ready to take that last step yet.
But the Federation will rebuild, and we will return to our original mission, the mission that sent countless generations before me to the stars, and will send countless generations after me. To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
I will continue to explore, and I will continue to help my friends and my allies. Heck, even Sela is beginning to turn over a new leaf. Whatever happens, we will perservere, we will survive, though the fleet is devastated, we are the fortunate few survivors. And when enemies appear at every corner, we will fight and die if need be so those at home may live on. There is an infinite galaxy out there, and we'll be the ones to unfurl the curtains. Me, Kengla, the twins, and the ever-loyal crew of the U.S.S. Calico Jack.
So, tell me, oh wise Praetor, can you live with yourself? Knowing that you could have doomed trillions to death and enslavement, that you have doomed countless generations to fighting this threat that you were unwilling to deal with yourself. That you've possibly now doomed the Klingon Empire because of the thing you both worship, "Honor". That your own people would have died, that we would have lost this war, all because of your moronic and stupid "honor". If you are unwilling to do what must be done to protect your people, to protect the galaxy, then what are you doing in the military?
Romulan arrogance at its finest, ladies and gentlemen.
(In character) Why, why didn't we destroy them when we had the chance? Kagren's plan was sound. Strategically, it was a good choice, because no one knew about nor cared about the significance of any "world heart", as we weren't supposed to take Iconian tech back with us. Furthermore, given the situation with the alliance in the future, it was a good choice, as any hope of peace failed miserably, and the rest of the Iconians wouldn't forgive us either because of the death of M'tara. Furthermore, given the radical change in the character of Kagran, when we got to the planet I honestly thought he was under Iconian mind control. Furthermore, with his own briefing speech, Kagran pretty much convinced me that regardless on whether it was the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do, it was as Rommel would say, "Krieg ohne Hass". Sela's arguments for it continued to push me toward completing the mission. I kept anticipating the moment that the deed would be done and we could return home, but it never happened. Kagren's constant pestering also didn't help. Truth be told, bringing back all those dead, that is a good thing, but for our survival, the job had to be done. It was literally them or us. We can live up to those ideals when we survive, and the best part, the only ones who will ever know were with me on the planet. It made no sense that we were going to save the Iconians, as the survival of billions is more important than the survival of 12 Iconians. I was angry when Kagren suggested that we were actually going to save them, and I'm almost positive Kagren was under some kind of Iconian mind control. When we returned to normal space, I saw that we were doomed. We had failed, everything we had done was pointless. The Iconians were going to kill us all. Me, my wife, my crew, my children. We would all die anonymous, pointless deaths because Kagren was weak...because I was weak. All because Kagren held onto his honor, despite the fact that he said it would be just a word if we failed. Even if he wasn't under Iconian mind control, this matter has caused major rifts between myself and my chief engineer, who went down to the planet with us, who also happens to be a Klingon. But in the end, I succumbed to the Iconian mind control, just like him. If only Sela, (who I now hold in greater respect than ANY Iconian despite her many, many crimes) had been able to finish the job, we would return to a freer, a safer galaxy.
When I returned, we essentially surrendered. The blasted Iconians somehow knew I had the world heart and they teleported me to their ship. I was furious, I couldn't even use it as a bargaining chip for anything less than "We won't kill you today." But if I didn't, they would have killed me, taken the World heart, and slaughtered the fleet, the Earth, and the galaxy. But even THAT wasn't enough for T'ket, who has more ships than the entire remnants of the fleet, who continues to attack Qo'nos, despite the fact that Kagren was their largest supporter, and the other Iconians, in their insolence, refuse to help us against her, or even try to rein their sister in! I bet Kagren is furious right now as the great hall is still barricaded, and the high council has to have food and water transported in, under the constant Iconian assault. But the absolute worst part about this, my children will have to fight this menace, and their children, and their children's children will have to fight this menace for millennia to follow. And, if by some miracle, we manage to kill T'ket, what will the rest of the Iconians do? This war is not over by a longshot.
I will try to forget this moment, for at the time of saying this, I can't do anything about it. But, If given the opportunity will go back in time and shoot down Kagren's ship myself if I have to! Kagren's hesitation caused us to nearly lose the war, and in that, almost doomed all life in the galaxy. We still have an enemy inside our own borders for crying out loud! And more in the future will have to die because of his cowardice.
Truth be told, these events really are making me question if I should stay in Starfleet, or whether I should retire. Takerra, my first officer has performed admirably throughout the conflicts, whether it was Earth of Qo'nos in danger, she never hesitated in doing her job. She would be an admirable Captain, and I think it's best that the next Captain of the Calico Jack should come from within her crew. But, even about that, I hesitate, is this really how it's going to end? People need me, and Starfleet will need help rebuilding, and they won't wait for me to make up my mind about retiring, so just as my wife worked to rebuild Betazed after the Dominion war when she was young, now I will help to rebuild the Federation.
But, in the meantime, I recieved another invitation to join Section 31, last time they tried to recruit me, I flat denied it. But now, seeing what foolishness can come from over-valuing things like honor, and not seeing the big picture, this one is much harder to refuse. I will not say no, but I'm not ready to take that last step yet.
But the Federation will rebuild, and we will return to our original mission, the mission that sent countless generations before me to the stars, and will send countless generations after me. To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
I will continue to explore, and I will continue to help my friends and my allies. Heck, even Sela is beginning to turn over a new leaf. Whatever happens, we will perservere, we will survive, though the fleet is devastated, we are the fortunate few survivors. And when enemies appear at every corner, we will fight and die if need be so those at home may live on. There is an infinite galaxy out there, and we'll be the ones to unfurl the curtains. Me, Kengla, the twins, and the ever-loyal crew of the U.S.S. Calico Jack.
So, tell me, oh wise Praetor, can you live with yourself? Knowing that you could have doomed trillions to death and enslavement, that you have doomed countless generations to fighting this threat that you were unwilling to deal with yourself. That you've possibly now doomed the Klingon Empire because of the thing you both worship, "Honor". That your own people would have died, that we would have lost this war, all because of your moronic and stupid "honor". If you are unwilling to do what must be done to protect your people, to protect the galaxy, then what are you doing in the military?
Now, read all of those posts, and then tell me how and why I went from saying those things to what I'm saying now -- because, until you can do so, I will regard anything further you say on this matter to be irrelevant by virtue of your being uninformed.))
why are we even arguing about this. Sela has plenty of other crimes that are worth more then enough for life in prison, so whether she is in the right or the wrong it doesn't matter. I understand why a lot of people hate her but I hope we can just forgets about all her crimes if she has a change of heart and leads the Empire to join the Republic and maybe she can become a follower of D'Tan or what I personally hope for and what would seem more likely if that did happen is she would become the leading political rival to D'Tan. Whatever happens I hope she is an active character in Season 11.
I'm sorry, but IMHO a "change of heart" is not enough to forget about multiple serious crimes. "I'm sorry" is just not enough.
And yet the Iconians get off scotfree for worse.
So? Did I say anywhere they should be patted on their heads and sent their way? Did I write the episode that you consider me responsible for how it ended? And how are Iconians even relevant to whether Sela should be executed, imprisoned, or set free for "I'm so sorry, I won't do it again"?
Did you even quote the right person with this question?
So, tell me, oh wise Praetor, can you live with yourself? Knowing that you could have doomed trillions to death and enslavement, that you have doomed countless generations to fighting this threat that you were unwilling to deal with yourself. That you've possibly now doomed the Klingon Empire because of the thing you both worship, "Honor". That your own people would have died, that we would have lost this war, all because of your moronic and stupid "honor". If you are unwilling to do what must be done to protect your people, to protect the galaxy, then what are you doing in the military?
No Romulan could live with themselves, if they violated what you so dismissively put in quotation marks. You may not understand it, but it's that simple... and complicated at the same time.
I have read them all, I guess the main difference between the two views, is that, especially in this situation, three quotes stick out. The first from Curtis LeMay, a U.S. Air Force General. "There are no innocent civilians. It is their government and you are fighting a people, you are not trying to fight an armed force anymore. So it doesn't bother me so much to be killing the so-called innocent bystanders. " While normally I would disagree with the killing of civilians, he's got a point. War, especially war like this, is not between armies. Armies are simply extensions of the wills of their governments, whether they be nation-states, or guerrilla groups, and as a military force, their first priority is to keep their people safe by whatever means necessary. If that means killing civilians so we may survive, so be it.
Secondly, as Rommel said, "Mortal danger is an effective antidote for fixed ideas." When you are threatened with death, or extermination, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING gets tossed out the window. If I must kill 12 Iconian civilians to save the entire galaxy, that is a more than acceptable sacrifice.
Another quote from Rommel finishes things nicely, "Courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility." Our mission is to go to ancient Iconia and wipe out the last twelve Iconians. You know what happens if you do anything less. Therefore it is militarily expedient to wipe them out, and you know that they wouldn't compromise in your position.
In terms of Ethics, it really didn't play a part in my judgement past the briefing, because if we fail, we know the consequences. This is one of the few, few, few, few times in which the ends DEFINITELY justify the means, If we kill 12 Iconian civilians, trillions will be spared. Yes, even if I have to kill them myself with my own hands. But when the alternate method is brought up, it really doesn't matter to me because you know what's going to happen if they get away. Essentially, If they get away, you die. The closest way I could relate this to ethics is "Probable consequentialism" and "What if-ism". Essentially based on what you know, what is the probable action of the enemy?
Another difference is what we actually consider an enemy. If Iconians died and reproduced like the rest of us, I might not consider them enemies, because the unnamed Iconians in the past didn't commit the crimes, but they ARE the same, and so you DO know what they will do if you let them escape. So, if you don't kill them, they WILL kill you.
Another difference. You blame Sela for their conquest, I blame their pride. The main reason I do this is because they don't stop with Sela, they go after EVERYONE. They blame "Lesser life forms" for their downfall, and whether Sela attacks or not, they are going to return and kill everyone. Sela, as I said, was nothing more than an excuse for the Iconians to blow up Romulus. That's why they waited 200,000 years for Sela to be born and become an adult before going after her. They definitely wanted revenge against Sela, but she was not the main reason behind it. They only waited 200,000 years so they could kill 2 birds with 1 stone, if they attacked earlier, even when the galaxy is more vulnerable, they won't be able to kill Sela herself. The Iconians may say their peaceful, but their actions prove otherwise.
Let's just say this. If they were threatened with extermination and they HAD to wipe us out, even using time travel, before we exterminated them, I would hope they would at least TRY to exterminate us, anything else essentially constitutes surrender.
One more thing that probably separates us. It's ironically my Optimistic realism. So long as there is an option for victory, not just survival, I will take it every time, and saving the Iconians, while it preserves the timeline and is technically the "right thing", does not give us victory no matter how you look at it, and in a situation where "Victory is life" you had best be sure I will take it.
And honestly, T'ket shoving the peace in our face does nothing to ameliorate the issue. Truthfully, even if I thought saving the Iconians was the right thing, I would STILL kill T'ket (or at least leave her to her fate).
In the end, the final clincher is the factor of risk. Are you willing to gamble the safety of the galaxy that they'll just let this grudge against all life in the galaxy go after 200,000 years just because you gave them a bowling ball? If not, then there's only one option.
You did not "tell me how and why I went from saying those things to what I'm saying now." Instead, you offered an Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
Tell me how and why I went from saying those things to what I'm saying now.
The only thing I can think of is the revelation that there are civilians, and that they weren't (as) horrible back then. Another thing is that you learn who will use the weapon, (You and...sela...it all comes back to Sela doesn't it?) and how it will be used.
The only other thing is it doesn't become us or them, but literally all evidence remain to indicate that it is us or them.
The only thing I can think of is the revelation that there are civilians, and that they weren't (as) horrible back then. Another thing is that you learn who will use the weapon, (You and...sela...it all comes back to Sela doesn't it?) and how it will be used.
The only other thing is it doesn't become us or them, but literally all evidence remain to indicate that it is us or them.
((Re-read my discussions on Ethics and different Ethical Philosophies in the linked posts. If you have familiarity with the history of Doctor Who and are not currently watching the Midseason Premiere of Doctor Who, you might like to do so; I suspect it will help you get part of the answer, although since I have not yet seen the entire show, I could be wrong. I will not supply any spoilers until it is over, apart from noting that, as of this point in the episode, he has encountered one of his greatest enemies when that enemy was still only an innocent and frightened child. The Doctor's choices in this episode are as yet unknown to me, and yet, knowing the history of the Doctor, I have some basis for informed speculation.))
I do have familiarity with the history of "Doctor Who", and my Brother is a big "New who" fan. Personally, I have also watched it, and I remember an episode with the 12th doctor in which the moon begins to hatch. The choice is kill the moon or let it hatch, and I agreed with every single person on earth in saying to kill it, because no matter what, just losing the moon is a BAD THING for life on Earth, and more research just amplified that. So when they were transported to the earth as the moon hatched and left behind a brand new moon (which is, of course the same size as the former moon despite the fact that it makes no sense) I was angry. Because of course self-preservation can just go to hell when you actually have to kill something. Sorry, I REALLY don't like that episode. So, yes, about the whole melding of consequences, context, and act.
You see them as innocents...despite everything else, you see them as innocents.
This destroyer guy is merely being a troll and his views hardly represent the views of humans on earth in the 25th century.
Maybe he's from the mirror universe?
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
No, I legitimately think that it's a bad idea to let them live, as if they live, we die. Period. Don't forget as well, there are always exceptions to the rule, Section 31 anyone? And just because I don't hold the same opinion as the rest of you, does that mean that I don't like Trek, or represent the opinions of humans in the 25th century? Are you content with just DYING if those who you have trusted to protect you cannot kill 12 Iconians? Are you saying that I don't KNOW trek? This is not the spirit of Trek? No, this is a case of "reality ensues".
Clearly, if I don't represent the opinion of ANYONE ELSE on earth, that means no one on Earth fears extermination, no one on Earth is capable of getting their hands dirty to save the galaxy, no one else can see what's right in front of their faces, no one else on Earth is a realist.
Tell me, do the lives of 12 Iconians, "innocent" or no, outweigh the lives of trillions who might die? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
So, yes, about the whole melding of consequences, context, and act.
You see them as innocents...despite everything else, you see them as innocents.
((You forgot the other half of the most important pair of the lot. Context and Intention/Attitude/Motivation.
And yes, I certainly do see the Ikonnsu of 200,000 years ago as innocents. That is the context, 200,000 years ago, when the Ikonnsu were philosophers, artists, scientists, and not militaristic conquerors twisted by 200 millennia of T'Ket's whisperings of vengeance and blinded to the identity of "the Other" by virtue of never having gotten close enough to see that person clearly. And the Intention/Attitude/Motivation is Mnhei'sahe and Ortaim (the latter word signifies "Justice" in Rihan).
You mentioned earlier L'Miren having stated "We will never forget this tragic day." More than one Ikonha who was rescued also said "Thank you for your kindness" and "I will remember your help" and such things. This is why they have preserved memory of, and respect for, "the Other."
Tell me, do the lives of 12 Iconians, "innocent" or no, outweigh the lives of trillions who might die? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
The quote ("The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.") is attributed to Surak. In Ancient Golic Vulcan, it is "Spunau bolayalar t'Wehku bolayalar t'Zamu il t'Veh." This dictum, in context (that is, in the context of Cthia, which is the Vulcan name of Surak's philosophy), is not the Consequentialist maxim which Humans have attempted to make of it by taking it out of context, but rather, an acknowledgement that self-sacrifice is sometimes necessary for the acting subject in order to preserve/protect others who have a claim on her/his protection. But damning oneself by abandoning one's principles in a Consequentialist disregard for means in favor of ends is also not what the dictum signifies. So even a Surakian Romulan would not view this statement in the manner in which you have interpreted it.))
Humans don't deserve to be put down because of the attitudes of one rather bad example. Hakeev last I checked, was Romulan.
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Humans don't deserve to be put down because of the attitudes of one rather bad example. Hakeev last I checked, was Romulan.
Which means that anyone, regardless of "enlightenment" can still be a good guy or a bad guy, and the line is not as clear as anyone might want to admit. I don't think the humans on the planet would like to lose their lives because someone couldn't do what was necessary. This is one of those moments when one like "The Unfettered" is necessary. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered
So, yes, about the whole melding of consequences, context, and act.
You see them as innocents...despite everything else, you see them as innocents.
((You forgot the other half of the most important pair of the lot. Context and Intention/Attitude/Motivation.
And yes, I certainly do see the Ikonnsu of 200,000 years ago as innocents. That is the context, 200,000 years ago, when the Ikonnsu were philosophers, artists, scientists, and not militaristic conquerors twisted by 200 millennia of T'Ket's whisperings of vengeance and blinded to the identity of "the Other" by virtue of never having gotten close enough to see that person clearly. And the Intention/Attitude/Motivation is Mnhei'sahe and Ortaim (the latter word signifies "Justice" in Rihan).
Even if they ARE innocent, they will kill you if you don't kill them. This is the same thing with the moon in Doctor Who. It may be innocent, but if it is allowed to hatch, it will make Earth uninhabitable. That is why I agreed with every other human on the planet when I voted to kill it. Now, this only works if you KNOW that they will kill you. Both in the case of the moon and in the case of the Iconians, you KNOW that they will kill you if you let them live, any appeal to what they used to be before the rebellion (note, it was a rebellion, not an invasion) will be entirely unsuccessful. Therefore when it comes to self-preservation, the only option is to kill those who are going to kill you, anything else is tantamount to surrender.
In the end, I personally think that saying "the ends never justify the means" is just as stupid as saying "the end ALWAYS justifies the means" this attack was out of desperation. Desperation to save lives, desperation to prevent a menace from rolling across the galaxy, destroying everything in its wake. Having to destroy innocents is a tragedy, but letting the Iconians kill trillions more is a bigger one. When one's first and main priority is winning the war to save the galaxy from these monsters, one must prepared to do whatever it takes, even if it means killing them in the past, before they did anything, even if it means cheating, or breaking the rules to save them. This is not always required, but when it is, one must be able to do it without hesitation. You don't have to like it, you just have to do it. And if there were more of us who were willing to go the extra mile to keep us safe, who will do whatever it takes to defeat the galaxy-threatening enemies, who were willing to do, in that moment of desperation what needed to be done to save the galaxy, despite those on Mount Pious calling for their heads every single day, then Section 31 would be out of a job.
Although...after mulling this over for a week and a half, there is one way we could get the overall better situation (plus no Iconian War) of the "Death" timeline and still save the "Good" Iconians. Also, for our lovely Praetor here, an added benefit. Sela doesn't get her revenge, she doesn't even NEED to.
HINT: When we go back in time, don't think "Murder", think "Kidnapping".
This destroyer guy is merely being a troll and his views hardly represent the views of humans on earth in the 25th century.
Maybe he's from the mirror universe?
Guess what? There's more than just humans in the Federation; it is not a Homo sapiens-only club. My main is Bajoran and my other Fed toon is a Trill. I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE.
There are solid ethical and moral reasons, under any system, underline, to eliminate both the Iconians and Sela. They are not innocent civilians, they are hostile generals and therefore legitimate military targets. I do not buy the shilling by "Midnight" of "oh, the poor misunderstood Iconians", or that an incompetent, narcissistic clinical sociopath like Sela can ever be a productive member of society. No matter what they suffered in the past the Iconians are responsible for the deaths of billions of people 200,000 years removed from the grievances against them, people who didn't even know they existed until they came out of nowhere forty years ago. And I don't give a damn if there was a predestination paradox or not, because if you try to use that as a defense you might as well just say "Fate made me do it!" THEY MADE A CHOICE. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
And they got to walk away without even a token attempt by the heroes to use their precious MacGuffin as leverage. And we're supposed to just take their word for it that they'll never bother us again, especially since they refuse to deal with T'Ket for us? That's not heroic or enlightened, it's cowardice before the enemy. It's the same hypocritical Federation "morality" that said the Occupation of Bajor wasn't the Federation's fight because Prime Directive blah blah blah (TNG: "Ensign Ro"), despite the fact the Federation was itself at war with the Cardassians at the time and seeing the atrocities firsthand. The bad guys won, yippee.
I would like to see a single argument that says destroying the Iconians altogether is unethical.
However, I would have skipped the time travel plan, and shot the person who thought of it in the foot for good measure. And Kagran can join him for criminal incompetence in ordering a frontal assault on the Herald Sphere. There were much simpler and more reliable options to force an Iconian surrender, like threatening to put a trilithium warhead into the Herald Sphere's sun, hitting it with a few thalaron blasts, or detonating Omega particles in the Iconia system to eliminate their ability to move forces permanently.
No free passes for mass murderers.
"Great War! / And I cannot take more! / Great tour! / I keep on marching on / I play the great score / There will be no encore / Great War! / The War to End All Wars"
— Sabaton, "Great War"
This destroyer guy is merely being a troll and his views hardly represent the views of humans on earth in the 25th century.
Maybe he's from the mirror universe?
Guess what? There's more than just humans in the Federation; it is not a Homo sapiens-only club. My main is Bajoran and my other Fed toon is a Trill. I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE.
There are solid ethical and moral reasons, under any system, underline, to eliminate both the Iconians and Sela. They are not innocent civilians, they are hostile generals and therefore legitimate military targets. I do not buy the shilling by "Midnight" of "oh, the poor misunderstood Iconians", or that an incompetent, narcissistic clinical sociopath like Sela can ever be a productive member of society. No matter what they suffered in the past the Iconians are responsible for the deaths of billions of people 200,000 years removed from the grievances against them, people who didn't even know they existed until they came out of nowhere forty years ago. And I don't give a damn if there was a predestination paradox or not, because if you try to use that as a defense you might as well just say "Fate made me do it!" THEY MADE A CHOICE. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
And they got to walk away without even a token attempt by the heroes to use their precious MacGuffin as leverage. And we're supposed to just take their word for it that they'll never bother us again, especially since they refuse to deal with T'Ket for us? That's not heroic or enlightened, it's cowardice before the enemy. It's the same hypocritical Federation "morality" that said the Occupation of Bajor wasn't the Federation's fight because Prime Directive blah blah blah (TNG: "Ensign Ro"), despite the fact the Federation was itself at war with the Cardassians at the time and seeing the atrocities firsthand. The bad guys won, yippee.
I would like to see a single argument that says destroying the Iconians altogether is unethical.
However, I would have skipped the time travel plan, and shot the person who thought of it in the foot for good measure. And Kagran can join him for criminal incompetence in ordering a frontal assault on the Herald Sphere. There were much simpler and more reliable options to force an Iconian surrender, like threatening to put a trilithium warhead into the Herald Sphere's sun, hitting it with a few thalaron blasts, or detonating Omega particles in the Iconia system to eliminate their ability to move forces permanently.
This destroyer guy is merely being a troll and his views hardly represent the views of humans on earth in the 25th century.
Maybe he's from the mirror universe?
Guess what? There's more than just humans in the Federation; it is not a Homo sapiens-only club. My main is Bajoran and my other Fed toon is a Trill. I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE.
There are solid ethical and moral reasons, under any system, underline, to eliminate both the Iconians and Sela. They are not innocent civilians, they are hostile generals and therefore legitimate military targets. I do not buy the shilling by "Midnight" of "oh, the poor misunderstood Iconians", or that an incompetent, narcissistic clinical sociopath like Sela can ever be a productive member of society. No matter what they suffered in the past the Iconians are responsible for the deaths of billions of people 200,000 years removed from the grievances against them, people who didn't even know they existed until they came out of nowhere forty years ago. And I don't give a damn if there was a predestination paradox or not, because if you try to use that as a defense you might as well just say "Fate made me do it!" THEY MADE A CHOICE. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
And they got to walk away without even a token attempt by the heroes to use their precious MacGuffin as leverage. And we're supposed to just take their word for it that they'll never bother us again, especially since they refuse to deal with T'Ket for us? That's not heroic or enlightened, it's cowardice before the enemy. It's the same hypocritical Federation "morality" that said the Occupation of Bajor wasn't the Federation's fight because Prime Directive blah blah blah (TNG: "Ensign Ro"), despite the fact the Federation was itself at war with the Cardassians at the time and seeing the atrocities firsthand. The bad guys won, yippee.
I would like to see a single argument that says destroying the Iconians altogether is unethical.
However, I would have skipped the time travel plan, and shot the person who thought of it in the foot for good measure. And Kagran can join him for criminal incompetence in ordering a frontal assault on the Herald Sphere. There were much simpler and more reliable options to force an Iconian surrender, like threatening to put a trilithium warhead into the Herald Sphere's sun, hitting it with a few thalaron blasts, or detonating Omega particles in the Iconia system to eliminate their ability to move forces permanently.
No free passes for mass murderers.
Wow...someone with some sense of reality that isn't so "enlightened" they're blinded by it.
I entirely agree with you (with some reservations) First, I do agree that we can remove both Sela and The Iconians, but the Iconians must be dealt with first. They are the more immediate threat, and Sela did just bring you significant reinforcements, so you can let her live at least for that. She can stand trial in the new timeline, for her actions done in that timeline. (I think that's only fair) Kagran...meh, I REALLY don't trust him, (Who knows, he might have been under Iconian mind control from the start) and he's as straightforward of a commander as they come. Do I think he's incompetent as commander of the entire allied force? Yes. Is he a bad guy? Probably not. Furthermore, if we were to try him for incompitence, just like Sela, he would have to be tried for his actions in the new timeline, and I don't think he would even be a factor there.
Yeah, scenarios like this is why I don't subscribe to any specific Ethical philosophy, that doesn't mean I'm not ethical, it just means I don't fully agree, nor care much about many current ethical systems. I know right from wrong, and take each case on its own merit. Essentially it's as foolhardy to say "the ends never justify the means" as it is to say, "The ends ALWAYS justify the means". In this case, in a choice between killing 12 Iconians or letting those twelve manipulate and slaughter countless beings, and destroy entire planets, I'll kill the Iconians.
Now, as to those alternative methods, the Omega particles won't work, as that only restricts travel for you, not them, I'm not totally sure how the gateways work, but given what we know, we cannot assume the use of the gateways are anything even close to warp travel. I don't think that Omega will stop them. Trilithium is another problem, I for one, remember that the herald sphere was fairly densely packed, so the warhead would be easily shot down if used at long range, and you remember how well the last assault on that sphere went. This idea is, at best, a 1 to 2-ship suicide mission. The chosen ships must be either Romulan or Klingon, because they have cloaking devices. If they can somehow find a way inside the sphere, they will have to avoid getting too close to the Iconian ships (easier said than done, in this case) and try to work their way to the sun. It will be tough, it will be dangerous. It's a one-way trip, the greater the risk, though, the greater the reward. It CAN work, but the chances are NOT good.
Thalaron...I have no idea, it will probably work on the Heralds, but as was evidenced by the fight with M'tara, I'm not sure WHAT the Iconians are now, or if Thalaron would even work. It might work, but based on the fact that the Romulans more than likely have some Thalaron weapons (or even the Remans if they'll help), and we STILL practically lost the war, despite them, I don't think Thalaron is the best idea either. The best idea you presented is the Trilithium idea, but the Time travel idea, regrettably, is the safest, and with Temporal mechanics, that's saying something.
I do, however agree with you in saying that both Sela and the Iconians are responsible for their own actions, and that inaction in this case (the only exception being just hovering in orbit during the bombardment, leaving the Iconians to their fate), is worse than going and doing the job yourself. I also agree with the unwillingness, not the inability to use Major MacGuffin to get more out of the Iconians, and the downright dickishness of the Iconians not being WILLING to at least keep T'ket on a leash.
Oh, and for your first lines, "I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE." Pure gold. *Applause*
This destroyer guy is merely being a troll and his views hardly represent the views of humans on earth in the 25th century.
Maybe he's from the mirror universe?
Guess what? There's more than just humans in the Federation; it is not a Homo sapiens-only club. My main is Bajoran and my other Fed toon is a Trill. I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE.
There are solid ethical and moral reasons, under any system, underline, to eliminate both the Iconians and Sela. They are not innocent civilians, they are hostile generals and therefore legitimate military targets. I do not buy the shilling by "Midnight" of "oh, the poor misunderstood Iconians", or that an incompetent, narcissistic clinical sociopath like Sela can ever be a productive member of society. No matter what they suffered in the past the Iconians are responsible for the deaths of billions of people 200,000 years removed from the grievances against them, people who didn't even know they existed until they came out of nowhere forty years ago. And I don't give a damn if there was a predestination paradox or not, because if you try to use that as a defense you might as well just say "Fate made me do it!" THEY MADE A CHOICE. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
And they got to walk away without even a token attempt by the heroes to use their precious MacGuffin as leverage. And we're supposed to just take their word for it that they'll never bother us again, especially since they refuse to deal with T'Ket for us? That's not heroic or enlightened, it's cowardice before the enemy. It's the same hypocritical Federation "morality" that said the Occupation of Bajor wasn't the Federation's fight because Prime Directive blah blah blah (TNG: "Ensign Ro"), despite the fact the Federation was itself at war with the Cardassians at the time and seeing the atrocities firsthand. The bad guys won, yippee.
I would like to see a single argument that says destroying the Iconians altogether is unethical.
However, I would have skipped the time travel plan, and shot the person who thought of it in the foot for good measure. And Kagran can join him for criminal incompetence in ordering a frontal assault on the Herald Sphere. There were much simpler and more reliable options to force an Iconian surrender, like threatening to put a trilithium warhead into the Herald Sphere's sun, hitting it with a few thalaron blasts, or detonating Omega particles in the Iconia system to eliminate their ability to move forces permanently.
No free passes for mass murderers.
This rounds up my feeling to almost a tee.
Didn't you, Symakhos ei'Rllaillieu tr'Vrinak, benefit from Conditional Amnesty, in spite of being found Guilty of Failure to Discharge Command Responsibility? Should the JAG Corps of the Tal'Diann have sentenced you to death instead?
External inconsistency, Grand Nephew, is not a virtue.
This destroyer guy is merely being a troll and his views hardly represent the views of humans on earth in the 25th century.
Maybe he's from the mirror universe?
Guess what? There's more than just humans in the Federation; it is not a Homo sapiens-only club. My main is Bajoran and my other Fed toon is a Trill. I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE.
There are solid ethical and moral reasons, under any system, underline, to eliminate both the Iconians and Sela. They are not innocent civilians, they are hostile generals and therefore legitimate military targets. I do not buy the shilling by "Midnight" of "oh, the poor misunderstood Iconians", or that an incompetent, narcissistic clinical sociopath like Sela can ever be a productive member of society. No matter what they suffered in the past the Iconians are responsible for the deaths of billions of people 200,000 years removed from the grievances against them, people who didn't even know they existed until they came out of nowhere forty years ago. And I don't give a damn if there was a predestination paradox or not, because if you try to use that as a defense you might as well just say "Fate made me do it!" THEY MADE A CHOICE. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
And they got to walk away without even a token attempt by the heroes to use their precious MacGuffin as leverage. And we're supposed to just take their word for it that they'll never bother us again, especially since they refuse to deal with T'Ket for us? That's not heroic or enlightened, it's cowardice before the enemy. It's the same hypocritical Federation "morality" that said the Occupation of Bajor wasn't the Federation's fight because Prime Directive blah blah blah (TNG: "Ensign Ro"), despite the fact the Federation was itself at war with the Cardassians at the time and seeing the atrocities firsthand. The bad guys won, yippee.
I would like to see a single argument that says destroying the Iconians altogether is unethical.
However, I would have skipped the time travel plan, and shot the person who thought of it in the foot for good measure. And Kagran can join him for criminal incompetence in ordering a frontal assault on the Herald Sphere. There were much simpler and more reliable options to force an Iconian surrender, like threatening to put a trilithium warhead into the Herald Sphere's sun, hitting it with a few thalaron blasts, or detonating Omega particles in the Iconia system to eliminate their ability to move forces permanently.
No free passes for mass murderers.
This rounds up my feeling to almost a tee.
Didn't you, Symakhos ei'Rllaillieu tr'Vrinak, benefit from Conditional Amnesty, in spite of being found Guilty of Failure to Discharge Command Responsibility? Should the JAG Corps of the Tal'Diann have sentenced you to death instead?
External inconsistency, Grand Nephew, is not a virtue.
..and have I been known for meek and unoriginal responses? Hmm..?
And she yells at me for logical fallacies while not breaking the argument set forth by starsword, which the worst bltrrn did was agree with her. Oh what a travesty that he actually holds an opinion that is counter to yours.
Telling from your post, he probably committed (albeit fictional) a war crime of some nature, but what he and Sela did COMBINED pale in comparison to what the Iconians did, and they didn't have to give up anything. So long as he's on my side when push comes to shove, most of the time it doesn't matter to me what you did. Yes, you will have to pay for it later (just like Sela will have to) but at the moment, in the heat of battle, when the fate of the galaxy hangs in the balance, what you may or may not have done is the least of my worries. We'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
I would like to see a single argument that says destroying the Iconians altogether is unethical.
I was all for destroying them altogether, even in the past, until I got to the past and saw that the "history" we had learned of their alleged tyrannical rule of the galaxy in that era was a blatant and boldfaced lie (no great surprise, seeing that Vulcan "history" concerning The Sundering is also filled with lies, conflations, half-truths, and guile), and that the Iconians then were not the Iconians of the 24th and 25th centuries. As the Preserver told us, "They were the first of our children, and for a time, the most troublesome. They were different once. Brighter. But our other children grew jealous of their gifts and chafed against their rule. The war changed them more than they could understand." And we saw all of that firsthand. We also saw the cause of the change.
Injustice begets injustice, and Sela has always been a raving idiot. And even she recognized that she was the cause of the injustice (I do not believe for a second that she genuinely feels any authentic remorse, but I do believe that she realizes that she was responsible, if only because she wants everything to always be about her). It was precisely the attempt by Sela to make the Iconians pay for what they had not yet done which resulted in them becoming changed into what we fought. And you would do the same, and don't see that it's wrong? You cannot punish someone for a crime they have not yet committed and still claim to be ethical. Ethics is about Internal Justice, as Politics and Economics are about External Justice. And "Retributive Justice" is only one type of Justice, one particular philosophy of law, which, alone, is unsatisfactory. But even "retribution" requires the debt to exist already. The very word refers to "repayment for past good or evil" (Fons). If the "good or evil" has not yet been done by the acting subject, then the acting subject has no debt yet, and forcing repayment for a debt which does not yet exist is unjust. Thus, it is unethical.
And she yells at me for logical fallacies while not breaking the argument set forth by starsword, which the worst bltrrn did was agree with her. Oh what a travesty that he actually holds an opinion that is counter to yours.
Telling from your post, he probably committed (albeit fictional) a war crime of some nature, but what he and Sela did COMBINED pale in comparison to what the Iconians did, and they didn't have to give up anything. So long as he's on my side when push comes to shove, most of the time it doesn't matter to me what you did. Yes, you will have to pay for it later (just like Sela will have to) but at the moment, in the heat of battle, when the fate of the galaxy hangs in the balance, what you may or may not have done is the least of my worries. We'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
Patience is also a virtue, Tovarish. I note also that you said "did" (past tense) and "pay for it later ..."
Edit: And I called him on external inconsistency, not on disagreeing with me.
Comments
I'm sorry, but IMHO a "change of heart" is not enough to forget about multiple serious crimes. "I'm sorry" is just not enough.
And yet the Iconians get off scotfree for worse.
That's right. I didn't. How perceptive of you.
Perhaps you have failed to grasp my previous response. I shall therefore state my response with less Romulan subtlety and more plainly for Human comprehension:
I have no intention of answering the question which you have posed, because the question in question ignores or omits relevant factors involved in the context in which I did what I did -- nor, indeed, am I likely to reply to you further no matter how you improve the question, for I doubt you will ever succeed in formulating it correctly.
(In character) Why, why didn't we destroy them when we had the chance? Kagren's plan was sound. Strategically, it was a good choice, because no one knew about nor cared about the significance of any "world heart", as we weren't supposed to take Iconian tech back with us. Furthermore, given the situation with the alliance in the future, it was a good choice, as any hope of peace failed miserably, and the rest of the Iconians wouldn't forgive us either because of the death of M'tara. Furthermore, given the radical change in the character of Kagran, when we got to the planet I honestly thought he was under Iconian mind control. Furthermore, with his own briefing speech, Kagran pretty much convinced me that regardless on whether it was the right thing to do, it was the necessary thing to do, it was as Rommel would say, "Krieg ohne Hass". Sela's arguments for it continued to push me toward completing the mission. I kept anticipating the moment that the deed would be done and we could return home, but it never happened. Kagren's constant pestering also didn't help. Truth be told, bringing back all those dead, that is a good thing, but for our survival, the job had to be done. It was literally them or us. We can live up to those ideals when we survive, and the best part, the only ones who will ever know were with me on the planet. It made no sense that we were going to save the Iconians, as the survival of billions is more important than the survival of 12 Iconians. I was angry when Kagren suggested that we were actually going to save them, and I'm almost positive Kagren was under some kind of Iconian mind control. When we returned to normal space, I saw that we were doomed. We had failed, everything we had done was pointless. The Iconians were going to kill us all. Me, my wife, my crew, my children. We would all die anonymous, pointless deaths because Kagren was weak...because I was weak. All because Kagren held onto his honor, despite the fact that he said it would be just a word if we failed. Even if he wasn't under Iconian mind control, this matter has caused major rifts between myself and my chief engineer, who went down to the planet with us, who also happens to be a Klingon. But in the end, I succumbed to the Iconian mind control, just like him. If only Sela, (who I now hold in greater respect than ANY Iconian despite her many, many crimes) had been able to finish the job, we would return to a freer, a safer galaxy.
When I returned, we essentially surrendered. The blasted Iconians somehow knew I had the world heart and they teleported me to their ship. I was furious, I couldn't even use it as a bargaining chip for anything less than "We won't kill you today." But if I didn't, they would have killed me, taken the World heart, and slaughtered the fleet, the Earth, and the galaxy. But even THAT wasn't enough for T'ket, who has more ships than the entire remnants of the fleet, who continues to attack Qo'nos, despite the fact that Kagren was their largest supporter, and the other Iconians, in their insolence, refuse to help us against her, or even try to rein their sister in! I bet Kagren is furious right now as the great hall is still barricaded, and the high council has to have food and water transported in, under the constant Iconian assault. But the absolute worst part about this, my children will have to fight this menace, and their children, and their children's children will have to fight this menace for millennia to follow. And, if by some miracle, we manage to kill T'ket, what will the rest of the Iconians do? This war is not over by a longshot.
I will try to forget this moment, for at the time of saying this, I can't do anything about it. But, If given the opportunity will go back in time and shoot down Kagren's ship myself if I have to! Kagren's hesitation caused us to nearly lose the war, and in that, almost doomed all life in the galaxy. We still have an enemy inside our own borders for crying out loud! And more in the future will have to die because of his cowardice.
Truth be told, these events really are making me question if I should stay in Starfleet, or whether I should retire. Takerra, my first officer has performed admirably throughout the conflicts, whether it was Earth of Qo'nos in danger, she never hesitated in doing her job. She would be an admirable Captain, and I think it's best that the next Captain of the Calico Jack should come from within her crew. But, even about that, I hesitate, is this really how it's going to end? People need me, and Starfleet will need help rebuilding, and they won't wait for me to make up my mind about retiring, so just as my wife worked to rebuild Betazed after the Dominion war when she was young, now I will help to rebuild the Federation.
But, in the meantime, I recieved another invitation to join Section 31, last time they tried to recruit me, I flat denied it. But now, seeing what foolishness can come from over-valuing things like honor, and not seeing the big picture, this one is much harder to refuse. I will not say no, but I'm not ready to take that last step yet.
But the Federation will rebuild, and we will return to our original mission, the mission that sent countless generations before me to the stars, and will send countless generations after me. To explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no one has gone before.
I will continue to explore, and I will continue to help my friends and my allies. Heck, even Sela is beginning to turn over a new leaf. Whatever happens, we will perservere, we will survive, though the fleet is devastated, we are the fortunate few survivors. And when enemies appear at every corner, we will fight and die if need be so those at home may live on. There is an infinite galaxy out there, and we'll be the ones to unfurl the curtains. Me, Kengla, the twins, and the ever-loyal crew of the U.S.S. Calico Jack.
So, tell me, oh wise Praetor, can you live with yourself? Knowing that you could have doomed trillions to death and enslavement, that you have doomed countless generations to fighting this threat that you were unwilling to deal with yourself. That you've possibly now doomed the Klingon Empire because of the thing you both worship, "Honor". That your own people would have died, that we would have lost this war, all because of your moronic and stupid "honor". If you are unwilling to do what must be done to protect your people, to protect the galaxy, then what are you doing in the military?
((I advised you previously to consult some of the posts I made in the several threads which concerned the use of the Krenim weapon before it was ever used, in order to have some frame of reference in speaking with me (and note: "with," not "at"). To be precise, here are a few of my posts from two of the aforementioned threads:
1 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12623102/#Comment_12623102
2 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12624863/#Comment_12624863
3 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12625500/#Comment_12625500
4 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12625647/#Comment_12625647
5 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12629335/#Comment_12629335
6 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12629448/#Comment_12629448
7 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12629916/#Comment_12629916
8 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12631105/#Comment_12631105
9 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12632525/#Comment_12632525
10 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12632701/#Comment_12632701
11 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12637766/#Comment_12637766
12 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12627434/#Comment_12627434
13 - http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/comment/12629388/#Comment_12629388
Now, read all of those posts, and then tell me how and why I went from saying those things to what I'm saying now -- because, until you can do so, I will regard anything further you say on this matter to be irrelevant by virtue of your being uninformed.))
So? Did I say anywhere they should be patted on their heads and sent their way? Did I write the episode that you consider me responsible for how it ended? And how are Iconians even relevant to whether Sela should be executed, imprisoned, or set free for "I'm so sorry, I won't do it again"?
Did you even quote the right person with this question?
No Romulan could live with themselves, if they violated what you so dismissively put in quotation marks. You may not understand it, but it's that simple... and complicated at the same time.
Secondly, as Rommel said, "Mortal danger is an effective antidote for fixed ideas." When you are threatened with death, or extermination, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING gets tossed out the window. If I must kill 12 Iconian civilians to save the entire galaxy, that is a more than acceptable sacrifice.
Another quote from Rommel finishes things nicely, "Courage which goes against military expediency is stupidity, or, if it is insisted upon by a commander, irresponsibility." Our mission is to go to ancient Iconia and wipe out the last twelve Iconians. You know what happens if you do anything less. Therefore it is militarily expedient to wipe them out, and you know that they wouldn't compromise in your position.
In terms of Ethics, it really didn't play a part in my judgement past the briefing, because if we fail, we know the consequences. This is one of the few, few, few, few times in which the ends DEFINITELY justify the means, If we kill 12 Iconian civilians, trillions will be spared. Yes, even if I have to kill them myself with my own hands. But when the alternate method is brought up, it really doesn't matter to me because you know what's going to happen if they get away. Essentially, If they get away, you die. The closest way I could relate this to ethics is "Probable consequentialism" and "What if-ism". Essentially based on what you know, what is the probable action of the enemy?
Another difference is what we actually consider an enemy. If Iconians died and reproduced like the rest of us, I might not consider them enemies, because the unnamed Iconians in the past didn't commit the crimes, but they ARE the same, and so you DO know what they will do if you let them escape. So, if you don't kill them, they WILL kill you.
Another difference. You blame Sela for their conquest, I blame their pride. The main reason I do this is because they don't stop with Sela, they go after EVERYONE. They blame "Lesser life forms" for their downfall, and whether Sela attacks or not, they are going to return and kill everyone. Sela, as I said, was nothing more than an excuse for the Iconians to blow up Romulus. That's why they waited 200,000 years for Sela to be born and become an adult before going after her. They definitely wanted revenge against Sela, but she was not the main reason behind it. They only waited 200,000 years so they could kill 2 birds with 1 stone, if they attacked earlier, even when the galaxy is more vulnerable, they won't be able to kill Sela herself. The Iconians may say their peaceful, but their actions prove otherwise.
Let's just say this. If they were threatened with extermination and they HAD to wipe us out, even using time travel, before we exterminated them, I would hope they would at least TRY to exterminate us, anything else essentially constitutes surrender.
One more thing that probably separates us. It's ironically my Optimistic realism. So long as there is an option for victory, not just survival, I will take it every time, and saving the Iconians, while it preserves the timeline and is technically the "right thing", does not give us victory no matter how you look at it, and in a situation where "Victory is life" you had best be sure I will take it.
And honestly, T'ket shoving the peace in our face does nothing to ameliorate the issue. Truthfully, even if I thought saving the Iconians was the right thing, I would STILL kill T'ket (or at least leave her to her fate).
In the end, the final clincher is the factor of risk. Are you willing to gamble the safety of the galaxy that they'll just let this grudge against all life in the galaxy go after 200,000 years just because you gave them a bowling ball? If not, then there's only one option.
You did not "tell me how and why I went from saying those things to what I'm saying now." Instead, you offered an Argumentum ad Verecundiam.
Tell me how and why I went from saying those things to what I'm saying now.
The only other thing is it doesn't become us or them, but literally all evidence remain to indicate that it is us or them.
((Re-read my discussions on Ethics and different Ethical Philosophies in the linked posts. If you have familiarity with the history of Doctor Who and are not currently watching the Midseason Premiere of Doctor Who, you might like to do so; I suspect it will help you get part of the answer, although since I have not yet seen the entire show, I could be wrong. I will not supply any spoilers until it is over, apart from noting that, as of this point in the episode, he has encountered one of his greatest enemies when that enemy was still only an innocent and frightened child. The Doctor's choices in this episode are as yet unknown to me, and yet, knowing the history of the Doctor, I have some basis for informed speculation.))
You see them as innocents...despite everything else, you see them as innocents.
Maybe he's from the mirror universe?
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Clearly, if I don't represent the opinion of ANYONE ELSE on earth, that means no one on Earth fears extermination, no one on Earth is capable of getting their hands dirty to save the galaxy, no one else can see what's right in front of their faces, no one else on Earth is a realist.
Tell me, do the lives of 12 Iconians, "innocent" or no, outweigh the lives of trillions who might die? Do not the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
((You forgot the other half of the most important pair of the lot. Context and Intention/Attitude/Motivation.
And yes, I certainly do see the Ikonnsu of 200,000 years ago as innocents. That is the context, 200,000 years ago, when the Ikonnsu were philosophers, artists, scientists, and not militaristic conquerors twisted by 200 millennia of T'Ket's whisperings of vengeance and blinded to the identity of "the Other" by virtue of never having gotten close enough to see that person clearly. And the Intention/Attitude/Motivation is Mnhei'sahe and Ortaim (the latter word signifies "Justice" in Rihan).
You mentioned earlier L'Miren having stated "We will never forget this tragic day." More than one Ikonha who was rescued also said "Thank you for your kindness" and "I will remember your help" and such things. This is why they have preserved memory of, and respect for, "the Other."
The quote ("The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.") is attributed to Surak. In Ancient Golic Vulcan, it is "Spunau bolayalar t'Wehku bolayalar t'Zamu il t'Veh." This dictum, in context (that is, in the context of Cthia, which is the Vulcan name of Surak's philosophy), is not the Consequentialist maxim which Humans have attempted to make of it by taking it out of context, but rather, an acknowledgement that self-sacrifice is sometimes necessary for the acting subject in order to preserve/protect others who have a claim on her/his protection. But damning oneself by abandoning one's principles in a Consequentialist disregard for means in favor of ends is also not what the dictum signifies. So even a Surakian Romulan would not view this statement in the manner in which you have interpreted it.))
"He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
Which means that anyone, regardless of "enlightenment" can still be a good guy or a bad guy, and the line is not as clear as anyone might want to admit. I don't think the humans on the planet would like to lose their lives because someone couldn't do what was necessary. This is one of those moments when one like "The Unfettered" is necessary. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheUnfettered
Even if they ARE innocent, they will kill you if you don't kill them. This is the same thing with the moon in Doctor Who. It may be innocent, but if it is allowed to hatch, it will make Earth uninhabitable. That is why I agreed with every other human on the planet when I voted to kill it. Now, this only works if you KNOW that they will kill you. Both in the case of the moon and in the case of the Iconians, you KNOW that they will kill you if you let them live, any appeal to what they used to be before the rebellion (note, it was a rebellion, not an invasion) will be entirely unsuccessful. Therefore when it comes to self-preservation, the only option is to kill those who are going to kill you, anything else is tantamount to surrender.
Seems to me he might be a member of section 31 or at least a supporter.
Although...after mulling this over for a week and a half, there is one way we could get the overall better situation (plus no Iconian War) of the "Death" timeline and still save the "Good" Iconians. Also, for our lovely Praetor here, an added benefit. Sela doesn't get her revenge, she doesn't even NEED to.
HINT: When we go back in time, don't think "Murder", think "Kidnapping".
Guess what? There's more than just humans in the Federation; it is not a Homo sapiens-only club. My main is Bajoran and my other Fed toon is a Trill. I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE.
There are solid ethical and moral reasons, under any system, underline, to eliminate both the Iconians and Sela. They are not innocent civilians, they are hostile generals and therefore legitimate military targets. I do not buy the shilling by "Midnight" of "oh, the poor misunderstood Iconians", or that an incompetent, narcissistic clinical sociopath like Sela can ever be a productive member of society. No matter what they suffered in the past the Iconians are responsible for the deaths of billions of people 200,000 years removed from the grievances against them, people who didn't even know they existed until they came out of nowhere forty years ago. And I don't give a damn if there was a predestination paradox or not, because if you try to use that as a defense you might as well just say "Fate made me do it!" THEY MADE A CHOICE. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
And they got to walk away without even a token attempt by the heroes to use their precious MacGuffin as leverage. And we're supposed to just take their word for it that they'll never bother us again, especially since they refuse to deal with T'Ket for us? That's not heroic or enlightened, it's cowardice before the enemy. It's the same hypocritical Federation "morality" that said the Occupation of Bajor wasn't the Federation's fight because Prime Directive blah blah blah (TNG: "Ensign Ro"), despite the fact the Federation was itself at war with the Cardassians at the time and seeing the atrocities firsthand. The bad guys won, yippee.
I would like to see a single argument that says destroying the Iconians altogether is unethical.
However, I would have skipped the time travel plan, and shot the person who thought of it in the foot for good measure. And Kagran can join him for criminal incompetence in ordering a frontal assault on the Herald Sphere. There were much simpler and more reliable options to force an Iconian surrender, like threatening to put a trilithium warhead into the Herald Sphere's sun, hitting it with a few thalaron blasts, or detonating Omega particles in the Iconia system to eliminate their ability to move forces permanently.
No free passes for mass murderers.
— Sabaton, "Great War"
Check out https://unitedfederationofpla.net/s/
This rounds up my feeling to almost a tee.
Tal'Shiar/Reman Resistance/Romulan Nemesis uniform, pls.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/13262502435_5604548f2c_o.png
Wow...someone with some sense of reality that isn't so "enlightened" they're blinded by it.
I entirely agree with you (with some reservations) First, I do agree that we can remove both Sela and The Iconians, but the Iconians must be dealt with first. They are the more immediate threat, and Sela did just bring you significant reinforcements, so you can let her live at least for that. She can stand trial in the new timeline, for her actions done in that timeline. (I think that's only fair) Kagran...meh, I REALLY don't trust him, (Who knows, he might have been under Iconian mind control from the start) and he's as straightforward of a commander as they come. Do I think he's incompetent as commander of the entire allied force? Yes. Is he a bad guy? Probably not. Furthermore, if we were to try him for incompitence, just like Sela, he would have to be tried for his actions in the new timeline, and I don't think he would even be a factor there.
Yeah, scenarios like this is why I don't subscribe to any specific Ethical philosophy, that doesn't mean I'm not ethical, it just means I don't fully agree, nor care much about many current ethical systems. I know right from wrong, and take each case on its own merit. Essentially it's as foolhardy to say "the ends never justify the means" as it is to say, "The ends ALWAYS justify the means". In this case, in a choice between killing 12 Iconians or letting those twelve manipulate and slaughter countless beings, and destroy entire planets, I'll kill the Iconians.
Now, as to those alternative methods, the Omega particles won't work, as that only restricts travel for you, not them, I'm not totally sure how the gateways work, but given what we know, we cannot assume the use of the gateways are anything even close to warp travel. I don't think that Omega will stop them. Trilithium is another problem, I for one, remember that the herald sphere was fairly densely packed, so the warhead would be easily shot down if used at long range, and you remember how well the last assault on that sphere went. This idea is, at best, a 1 to 2-ship suicide mission. The chosen ships must be either Romulan or Klingon, because they have cloaking devices. If they can somehow find a way inside the sphere, they will have to avoid getting too close to the Iconian ships (easier said than done, in this case) and try to work their way to the sun. It will be tough, it will be dangerous. It's a one-way trip, the greater the risk, though, the greater the reward. It CAN work, but the chances are NOT good.
Thalaron...I have no idea, it will probably work on the Heralds, but as was evidenced by the fight with M'tara, I'm not sure WHAT the Iconians are now, or if Thalaron would even work. It might work, but based on the fact that the Romulans more than likely have some Thalaron weapons (or even the Remans if they'll help), and we STILL practically lost the war, despite them, I don't think Thalaron is the best idea either. The best idea you presented is the Trilithium idea, but the Time travel idea, regrettably, is the safest, and with Temporal mechanics, that's saying something.
I do, however agree with you in saying that both Sela and the Iconians are responsible for their own actions, and that inaction in this case (the only exception being just hovering in orbit during the bombardment, leaving the Iconians to their fate), is worse than going and doing the job yourself. I also agree with the unwillingness, not the inability to use Major MacGuffin to get more out of the Iconians, and the downright dickishness of the Iconians not being WILLING to at least keep T'ket on a leash.
Oh, and for your first lines, "I suppose it now falls to the nonhuman members of the Federation to yank humanity's head out of its TRIBBLE." Pure gold. *Applause*
Didn't you, Symakhos ei'Rllaillieu tr'Vrinak, benefit from Conditional Amnesty, in spite of being found Guilty of Failure to Discharge Command Responsibility? Should the JAG Corps of the Tal'Diann have sentenced you to death instead?
External inconsistency, Grand Nephew, is not a virtue.
..and have I been known for meek and unoriginal responses? Hmm..?
Tal'Shiar/Reman Resistance/Romulan Nemesis uniform, pls.
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7403/13262502435_5604548f2c_o.png
Telling from your post, he probably committed (albeit fictional) a war crime of some nature, but what he and Sela did COMBINED pale in comparison to what the Iconians did, and they didn't have to give up anything. So long as he's on my side when push comes to shove, most of the time it doesn't matter to me what you did. Yes, you will have to pay for it later (just like Sela will have to) but at the moment, in the heat of battle, when the fate of the galaxy hangs in the balance, what you may or may not have done is the least of my worries. We'll burn that bridge when we come to it.
I was all for destroying them altogether, even in the past, until I got to the past and saw that the "history" we had learned of their alleged tyrannical rule of the galaxy in that era was a blatant and boldfaced lie (no great surprise, seeing that Vulcan "history" concerning The Sundering is also filled with lies, conflations, half-truths, and guile), and that the Iconians then were not the Iconians of the 24th and 25th centuries. As the Preserver told us, "They were the first of our children, and for a time, the most troublesome. They were different once. Brighter. But our other children grew jealous of their gifts and chafed against their rule. The war changed them more than they could understand." And we saw all of that firsthand. We also saw the cause of the change.
Injustice begets injustice, and Sela has always been a raving idiot. And even she recognized that she was the cause of the injustice (I do not believe for a second that she genuinely feels any authentic remorse, but I do believe that she realizes that she was responsible, if only because she wants everything to always be about her). It was precisely the attempt by Sela to make the Iconians pay for what they had not yet done which resulted in them becoming changed into what we fought. And you would do the same, and don't see that it's wrong? You cannot punish someone for a crime they have not yet committed and still claim to be ethical. Ethics is about Internal Justice, as Politics and Economics are about External Justice. And "Retributive Justice" is only one type of Justice, one particular philosophy of law, which, alone, is unsatisfactory. But even "retribution" requires the debt to exist already. The very word refers to "repayment for past good or evil" (Fons). If the "good or evil" has not yet been done by the acting subject, then the acting subject has no debt yet, and forcing repayment for a debt which does not yet exist is unjust. Thus, it is unethical.
Voilà.
Patience is also a virtue, Tovarish. I note also that you said "did" (past tense) and "pay for it later ..."
Edit: And I called him on external inconsistency, not on disagreeing with me.