|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted August 01, 2009 02:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
no one forces you to live in a given country, there are a lots of place in the world where you could live.
also, what makes you think the agressors would necessarily oppress you?
So you suggest that when an aggressor nation invades another the citizens of the invaded nation flee to another nation? And then flee again when thir new nation is invaded?
Quote:
"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate countless worlds, and we fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they have done!" -- Picard, to Lily
Why should I assume the invaders are invading my nation to be my friend? It would be illogical to assume that I would not be oppressed. Would they let me run for political office? Would they let me speak freely about their evil deeds?
Quote:
the fact that people are living differently doesn't mean they are thinking differently.
Actually different cultures can have very different world views. But even if the people of another nation have similar views life there will be very different if a Stalin or Hitler rules them. I have no desire to live in such a society.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 03:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
in that case, it's the ideas you defend, not really the nation.
well now that I think about it, you could say that 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 04:34 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:40, 01 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate countless worlds, and we fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they have done!" -- Picard, to Lily
Rather ironic that you would use this quote to support a militant viewpoint, given that the whole point of the scene in which it appeared was that Picard was letting his thirst for revenge and desire to defend the Enterprise at all cost get in the way of his good judgment. If I recall, there was a Moby Dick allusion in there somewhere.
Perhaps you should quote the dialogue of the ENTIRE SCENE rather than just snipping one line out of it and presenting it out of context.
Actually, here's the transcript of the whole scene:
Lily: You son of a ----
Picard: This really isn't the time.
Lily: Ok, I don't know Jack about the 24th Century, but everyone out there [on this ship] thinks that staying here and fighting the Borg is suicide. They're just afraid to come in here and say it.
Picard: The crew is accustomed to following my orders.
Lily: They're probably accustomed to your orders making sense.
Picard: None of them understand the Borg as I do! (softly) No one does. No one can.
Lily: What is that supposed to mean?
Picard: Six years ago, they assimilated me into their collective. I had their cybernetic devices implanted throughout my body. I was linked to the hive mind. Every trace of individuality erased. I was one of them. So you can imagine, my dear, I have a somewhat unique perspective on the Borg, and I know how to fight them. Now if you will excuse me, I have work to do.
Lily: I am such an idiot. It's so simple. The Borg hurt you, and now you're going to hurt them back.
Picard: In my century, we don't succomb to revenge. We have a more evolved sensibility.
Lily: Bull----! I saw the look on your face when you shot those Borg on the holodeck. You were almost enjoying it!
Picard (standing): How dare you.
Lily: Oh, come on, Captain, you're not the first person to get a thrill from murdering someone. I see it all the time.
Picard: GET OUT.
Lily: Or what? You'll kill me? Like you killed ensign Lynch?
Picard: There was no way to save him.
Lily: You didn't even try. Where was your evolved sensibility then?
Picard: I don't have time for this.
Lily: Oh, hey, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt your little quest. Captain Ahab has to go hunt his whale.
Picard: What?
Lily: You do have books in the 24th century.
Picard: This is not about revenge.
Lily: LIAR.
Picard: This is about saving the future of humanity.
Lily: Jean-Luc, Blow up the damn ship!!
Picard: NO! NOOOOOOOO!!!
[Picard smashes a display case window with a bunch of model ships behind it - he uses a gun to do it. Then, long pause as he looks at his handiwork]
Picard: I will not sacrifice the enterprise. We've made too many compromises already. Too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds, and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here. This far, no farther. And I... will make them pay for what they've done.
[Picard goes and stares out a window. Lily walks over and picks up one of the broken model ships.]
Lily: You broke your little ships.
[Puts down the model.]
Lily: See ya around, Ahab.
[Starts to leave room.]
Picard: "And he piled on the whale's white hump a sum of all the rage and hate felt by his own race. If his chest had been a cannon, he would have shot his heart upon it."
Lily: What?
Picard: Moby Dick.
Lily: Actually, I never read it.
Picard: Ahab spent years hunting the white whale that crippled him. The quest for vengeance, but in the end, it destroyed him, and his ship.
Lily: I guess he didn't know when to quit.
[Picard puts down his gun and leaves the room.]
You can watch the whole scene here(though I already transcribed it for you - geez that took a long time. ). As I recall, Picard orders Riker to set the self destruct sequence in the next scene.
Well anyway, it's a great scene and maybe instructive in this thread. I just found it amusing that Elodin quoted part of a scene that pretty much argues the exact opposite of what he's trying to argue. Not that I necessarily disagree with him.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 01, 2009 07:52 PM |
|
|
Nonetheless the quote expressed my sentiments quite nicely. Perhaps these quotes would be more appropriate in context. 
Quote:
"The best diplomat that I know is a fully-loaded phaser bank." -- Lt. Cdr. Montgomery Scott ("A Taste of Armageddon")
Quote:
A song sung by O'Brien in "The Wounded"
A minstrel boy to the war has gone
in the ranks of death ye will find him.
His fathers sword he hath girded on
with his wild harp slung behind him.
"Land of song," said the warrior bard,
"though all the world betrays thee
one sword at least thy rights shall guard
one faithful harp shall praise thee."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 12:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
no one forces you to live in a given country, there are a lots of place in the world where you could live.
also, what makes you think the agressors would necessarily oppress you?
So you suggest that when an aggressor nation invades another the citizens of the invaded nation flee to another nation? And then flee again when thir new nation is invaded?
not exactly, just saying you have the choice, you don't have to fight.
Quote:
Quote:
"They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate countless worlds, and we fall back. Not again. Not this time. The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther! And I will make them pay for what they have done!" -- Picard, to Lily
Why should I assume the invaders are invading my nation to be my friend? It would be illogical to assume that I would not be oppressed. Would they let me run for political office? Would they let me speak freely about their evil deeds?
why not, do they have any reason to hate you? most people on the 2 sides probably didn't want the war.
Quote:
Quote:
the fact that people are living differently doesn't mean they are thinking differently.
Actually different cultures can have very different world views. But even if the people of another nation have similar views life there will be very different if a Stalin or Hitler rules them. I have no desire to live in such a society.
yes of course, but I was talking about the people, not about the government. are people worse when they are oppressed?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
why not, do they have any reason to hate you? most people on the 2 sides probably didn't want the war.
Show me one example of an aggressor conquering a nation and then allowing the conquered freedom of speech, the ability to run for political office, and the ability to vote for laws.
It would not happen. The local population would vote the aggressors out of the country.
Quote:
yes of course, but I was talking about the people, not about the government. are people worse when they are oppressed?
Ah well, it seemed to me you were implying life would be not much different for me if some aggressor nation conquered my nation.
We were talking about one defending or not defending one's nation when attacked by an aggressor I thought. Your options seemed to be to flee to another nation or to live under the oppressor. The option I presented was to fight the invader.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 11:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Show me one example of an aggressor conquering a nation and then allowing the conquered freedom of speech, the ability to run for political office, and the ability to vote for laws.
Alexander the great, everything got better after the guy tok over your nation.
Or
Well what happend was basicaly that he allowed free trade, while not following the popular trends of winning a war(mass discrimination and supression).
Well considering the fact that we would not know good things would happen, til after the annexing is over i guess(pardon me if i use the wrong word here).
Quote:
yes of course, but I was talking about the people, not about the government. are people worse when they are oppressed?
Its all about bringing out the bad potential.
Well, the French and Russian revolution came because the people was suppressed and abused by the nobles. They hunted down the nobles like they was rabid animals also, all because of hatred. And i guess i am ranting here <.<
Quote:
not exactly, just saying you have the choice, you don't have to fight.
How would he or i know that if the other side takes over our country, things will not get worse?
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 02:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Show me one example of an aggressor conquering a nation and then allowing the conquered freedom of speech, the ability to run for political office, and the ability to vote for laws.
Iraq.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 03:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Show me one example of an aggressor conquering a nation and then allowing the conquered freedom of speech, the ability to run for political office, and the ability to vote for laws.
Iraq.
You must also remember how Saddam got into the throne 
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 06:48 PM |
|
|
Iraq does not count. The US was not an agressor nation conquering Iraq. The US was taking war to terrorists. The US and Iraqi forces have been fighting side by side for some time.
Alexander the Great did not allow free elections eh? And free speech? What would happen if you challenged his right to lead his empire?
Let us consider if the US, Britian, or similar democratic society is conquered by an agressor nation. Do you think there will be less freedom or more freedom for the citizens?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 07:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The US was not an agressor nation conquering Iraq.
Of course, I don't know what history will say, but I think you'll have to agree that in 2003 Iraq didn't invade the US.
Taking war to terrorists? The US fought the regime of dictator Saddam Hussein, who had not aggressed against it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Alexander the Great did not allow free elections eh? And free speech? What would happen if you challenged his right to lead his empire?
Considering the periode of time it was in, its not bad. Full free speech itself is something quite new compared to human history anyway.
Medieval? The church would burn you or similar accusing you of being a heretic, well that applies in most places of the planet except tribals. Tribals was more of "strongest leads, rest follows".
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 07:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Taking war to terrorists? The US fought the regime of dictator Saddam Hussein, who had not aggressed against it.
The US had numerous reasons to invade Iraq. Iraq had invaded Kwait and been defeated by the US. Saddam was not living up to the terms of surrender. Also, Sadaam was telling eveyone he had WMS. He was alos a mass murderer. He also supported and financed terrorists. He also refused to abide by US resolutions and kicked inspectors out of the country.
And of course, as I said, the US troops have been fighting side by side with US troops against terrorists. The US has not been at war with Iraq.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 08:02 PM |
|
|
That doesn't change the facts, which are that the United States invaded Iraq, fought the Iraqi army, and toppled its sovereign government.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 08:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The US had numerous reasons to invade Iraq. Iraq had invaded Kwait and been defeated by the US. Saddam was not living up to the terms of surrender. Also, Sadaam was telling eveyone he had WMS. He was alos a mass murderer. He also supported and financed terrorists. He also refused to abide by US resolutions and kicked inspectors out of the country.
So what if he had WMS? Doesn't the US have them as well?
All the "reasons" you gave above are no different than any reasons behind a war. What makes them special?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 08:40 PM |
|
|
@ El:
Quote:
The US had numerous reasons to invade Iraq. Iraq had invaded Kwait and been defeated by the US. Saddam was not living up to the terms of surrender.
Saddam wasn't living up to the terms of surrender to a previous war that was by itself shady. And even if we give things the benefit of doubt and say the U.S. should have intervened in the Persian Gulf, it's still pretty extreme going into another war over it.
Quote:
Also, Sadaam was telling eveyone he had WMS.
Lot's of places have WMS. Shall we invade Russia? What about England? No, we don't that, conveniently because it would have severe consequences. But Iraq; they're a consumable morsel.
Quote:
He was alos a mass murderer.
So are many rulers in Sudan, Sri Lanka, Burma, etc. It is not the U.S. government's responsibility to try to create peace through war, nor is it practical.
Quote:
He also supported and financed terrorists. He also refused to abide by US resolutions and kicked inspectors out of the country.
To my knowledge, that is not certain. Even if it is, the U.S., among other countries, has no quarrels with supporting and financing terrorists. When the Soviets moved into Afghanistan, they were greeted by the Taliban, who were outfitted with American arms. Two wrongs do not make a right, but it should make people second guess going to war everytime a nation does some underhanded dealing.
I suppose my point to everything stated thus far, is that if we decided to go to war everytime anybody did any of these things, we would perpetually be at war.
Quote:
And of course, as I said, the US troops have been fighting side by side with US troops against terrorists. The US has not been at war with Iraq.
The terrorists of the world are delighted by the occupation of Iraq. Their numbers have bolstered from the hatred that resulted from it, and the U.S. is ultimately fighting a war that it is incapable of winning. Terrorism is a tactic, and you cannot declare war on a tactic. It will potentially exist as long as human nature is what it is. The claimed purpose of the war is for national security, and yet the invasion of Iraq has been weakening national security by producing more enemies.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The terrorists of the world are delighted by the occupation of Iraq. Their numbers have bolstered from the hatred that resulted from it, and the U.S. is ultimately fighting a war that it is incapable of winning. Terrorism is a tactic, and you cannot declare war on a tactic. It will potentially exist as long as human nature is what it is. The claimed purpose of the war is for national security, and yet the invasion of Iraq has been weakening national security by producing more enemies.
They can win, if they do it the mongolian way 
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 08:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They can win, if they do it the mongolian way
Except that now there are other superpowers to take into account.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 08:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
They can win, if they do it the mongolian way
Except that now there are other superpowers to take into account.
And like every war and human rights treaty 
I am not sure what you thought but by the mongolian way I meant killing everyone
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 02, 2009 09:04 PM |
|
|
They can't win even if they do things the Mongolian way. If they killed everybody in Iraq, it would produce immense amounts of terrorists among the rest of the Middle Eastern world and beyond.
You cannot war against a tactic.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
