www.ditl.org

by **Teaos** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:43 pm

If you were placed in Ben Siskos place at the start of the episode "In a pale Moonlight" would you follow the same actions? Go the more "Moral" way of not killing a senator, or option C, some other plot to get the romulans in the war.

by **Deepcrush** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 9:45 pm

I personally didn't see it as a problem. Vrenak was the biggest Pro-Dominion Senator in the RSE. Taking him out, along with stealing the support of his followers while pulling the RSE into the war was the correct decision to make.

by **kostmayer** » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:07 pm

Don't see it as a problem either.

Not only were the Romulans not joining the fight, they were allowing the Dominion to cross their territory in order to attack the Federation. Garak was right, Sisko got himself a bargain. I'd wager there were a lot more Romulans killed when they attacked the Dominion immediately after Vrenaks death.

Sisko didn't seem to concerned about the death of Garaks operatives either.

by **Teaos** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:26 am

I wouldnt say I dont see the problem with it.

They assasinated a senator of a massive power to bring them into the war at the cost of thousands of their citizens lives.

Sure the end result was good, and in the long run the romulans probably benefited from it, but it was still murder.

Also it had a risk of being discovered and turning the Romulans against the allies.

I agree the benifits out weighed the costs and dangers... but that still doesnt make it right.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

by **GrahamKennedy** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:49 am

Well Ben didn't kill the guy, so I don't see that he did anything wrong there.

If I were him, I'd be pissed that Garak didn't tell me in advance what he planned to do.

by **Lt. Staplic** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:40 am

GrahamKennedy wrote:Well Ben didn't kill the guy, so I don't see that he did anything wrong there.

If I were him, I'd be pissed that Garak didn't tell me in advance what he planned to do.

Would Sisko really have been able to let it happen knowing what was going to go down in advance?

IMO that's why Garak didn't tell him, and IMO why sisko didn't stay mad at him for not informing him.

by **Tsukiyumi** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:30 am

Lt. Staplic wrote:IMO that's why Garak didn't tell him, and IMO why sisko didn't stay mad at him for not informing him.

Exactly.

by **Deepcrush** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:36 am

Lt. Staplic wrote:Would Sisko really have been able to let it happen knowing what was going to go down in advance?

IMO that's why Garak didn't tell him, and IMO why sisko didn't stay mad at him for not informing him.

Sisko didn't stay mad because he knows Garak did what had to be done. Garak did what Sisko could never have brought himself to do without falling apart on himself.

Teaos wrote:The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Politics are evil by nature.

by **Tsukiyumi** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:38 am

Deepcrush wrote:Sisko didn't stay mad because he knows Garak did what had to be done. Garak did what Sisko could never have brought himself to do without falling apart on himself.

Exactly.

Again. :wink:

by **GrahamKennedy** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:06 am

Lt. Staplic wrote:
GrahamKennedy wrote:Well Ben didn't kill the guy, so I don't see that he did anything wrong there.

If I were him, I'd be pissed that Garak didn't tell me in advance what he planned to do.

Would Sisko really have been able to let it happen knowing what was going to go down in advance?

IMO that's why Garak didn't tell him, and IMO why sisko didn't stay mad at him for not informing him.

Kick it upstairs and ask Starfleet Intelligence. They okayed the deception in the first place; they may have okayed the assassination, or not.

by **Captain Seafort** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:10 am

GrahamKennedy wrote:Kick it upstairs and ask Starfleet Intelligence. They okayed the deception in the first place; they may have okayed the assassination, or not.

And if they didn't then S31 would probably have stepped in and got the job done anyway.

by **Teaos** » Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:55 pm

Unless they had another way to bring the Romulans into the war. Another treaty that gives them more power, or spoils of war. That seems more like typical starfleet politics.

by **Deepcrush** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:41 am

May have been more typical but then again, the UFP honestly lacked anything to it could use to bribe the RSE to join their side.

by **McAvoy** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:21 pm

They needed the Romulans. We don't know about the military might of the other neutral powers like the Tholians or the Gorn, bu we do know the Romulans are a superpower comparable to the Federation themselves.

Without them, I think the Feds and the Klingons would have lost the war.

by **Captain Seafort** » Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:26 pm

McAvoy wrote:We don't know about the military might of the other neutral powers like the Tholians or the Gorn

Given that their nonagression pacts with the Dominion were treated with concern rather than shrugs or total panic, they (and the Breen for that matter) were probably close to the relative strength of the UK and France today.

Without them, I think the Feds and the Klingons would have lost the war.

Not just "would have lost" but "were loosing". Remember the casualty lists Sisko was going through, and the fall of Betazed in ITPM.

www.ditl.org

Moral debate

Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Re: Moral debate

Who is online