Concept behind stillborn 'Star Trek' cartoon

[Purple]

I'm curious here; did the Federation actually have the right to trade away those colonies? Were they Federation property, or independent?

I don't think that matters. This is because what ever the case my be the Federation has the legal right to make such agreements.
Allow me to explain my line of reasoning. You see, there are only 3 cases that I can think of that could have been:

Case 1: They were Federation colonies owned by the Federation. The Federation can hence simply trade away the land.
Case 2: They were independent colonies under federation protection and/or support. The Federation can sign a treaty to cut of said protection or support leaving them open for the Cardassians to invade at their leisure.
Case 3: They were independent and not under federation protection and/or support. The Federation can sign a treaty to not give them any of said protection or support in the future leaving them open for the Cardassians to invade at their leisure.

While case 1 handles actual trade of territory cases 2 and 3 handle an exchange of zones of influence. But in reality the changes are only semantical. Either way you put it, minor colonies are just bargaining chips for the superpowers. And being independent (if they were) would not change a thing. In fact, if they were independent the Federation would have even less reason not to just sign them away.

[Uraniun235]

You wouldn't arrest someone who lead an armed incursion into your country after you stopped her? Whether or not the Romulans would disown her or not, they still had a duty to capture Sela and her men, even if it was only rub the Romulan's noses in it for being bad.

Let me see if I get this straight. Picard, Data, and Spock are supposed to drag along an unconscious woman, potentially complicating their escape and thereby engendering additional risk to themselves, purely to "rub the Romulans' noses in it for being bad." I just want to make sure I've got that clear.

The Enterprise and the Vulcan defense force intercept them after Spock gets the word out. Then... nothing happens, with no consequences what so ever.

Again, what fucking consequences do you want to see? An open war?

Hey, if USA military personnel foiled a secret USSR plot to invade the USA, and effectively returned the situation to status quo antebellum, do you seriously think the USA should have started a war with the USSR? I'm just curious since you've got such a hardon for consequences.

How do you know that Maxwell wasn't reporting his evidence to Starfleet? We caught the situation en media res, AFTER Maxwell and his crew mutinied. Note, it wasn't just Maxwell who left, it was his entire crew. If Maxwell was "an unstable renegade", then why would the crew of his ship follow him? He had to convince them before he could lead any attack against the Cardassians. Remember, the Federation didn't even know anything was wrong until the Cardassians started attacking Federation assets in retribution for what Maxwell was doing, so it's not like Maxwell's crew was split on the issue, because otherwise the Federation would have been warned that the Phoenix was planning to mutiny. We don't know anything about what Maxwell was reporting before hand or what his evidence actually was.

Because if Maxwell had concrete evidence and a paper trail of reports to Starfleet Command, he wouldn't have folded up like a cheap chair in Picard's office. When Picard asked "where is your data", Maxwell would say "I've got fifty teraquads of sensor logs showing Cardassian arms shipments", and when Picard asked "why didn't you report this to Starfleet Command", Maxwell would respond "I have and they didn't listen! I've got copies of both the reports and the communications logs!"

But he didn't, he threw up a line of bullshit about how he "had to act" in the face of some nebulous danger, and then just accused Picard of cowardice for even questioning him. It's seriously reminiscent of Bush arguing that we knew Saddam had them dubya-emm-dees and by golly we gotta get 'em before they get us. How long has it been since you've seen that scene, Gil? It's a really fucking pathetic showing on Maxwell's part and I'm surprised you're defending him as much as you are.

This shit about "nuhh the crew" is just horseshit. It doesn't take the whole crew to go along, just a few key senior officers. "The crew" certainly didn't do shit when Captain Kirk flew straight into Romulan territory without the slightest explanation.

Also a LOL about "well the photon torpedoes HAD to come from a VAST conspiracy of sympathizers!"

1) I really doubt it takes a huge proportion of the Starfleet in order to smuggle out some torpedoes.
2) As much as I loathe how it became a conspiracy catch-all to fans, it's 100% in character for Section 31 to smuggle arms to the Maquis in an attempt to draw the Cardassians into a draining asymmetrical war. Or, shit, even for some of the Starfleet conspirators to do so less out of "awwww poor Maquis" sympathy and more out of "FUCK CARDASSIANS"-types who still want to continue the fight.

It was only cowardice on the part of Starfleet that prevented them from doing what was right; that is, if the sovereign nation is violating the terms of a peace treaty, then the treaty is dissolved and the state of war resumes.

That's a Federation decision, to which Starfleet should be subservient to, including Picard.

Are you shitting me, Uraniun? Picard disobeying a direct order from his superiors and going into a state of mutiny to protect a small colony from bad guys whom the Federation has a treaty with is the entire plot of the movie StarTrek: Insurrection.

I really don't give a shit what Picard did in Insurrection because it was a shitty plot for a mediocre movie that I don't even think should have been made to begin with.

The real difference however is that the Baku were not Federation citizens, and therefore the Federation presumably had no right to order their removal or extermination. The Maquis, on the other hand, were Federation citizens under Federation authority.

Let me ask you though, Gil, do you believe that no government ever has the right to cede settled/occupied territory to another? Because that's literally the whole fucking lynchpin of the entire "waaaahhhh the federation is sooo mean and the maquis are sooooo noble" sob story, is that the Federation should not ever trade territory which already has been settled, even if it may be in the best interest of the Federation.

"nuhhh but superior power"

So, first, the admiral in The Wounded was pretty much shitting his pants at the thought of a renewed war with the Cardassians. "Cannot afford" were the words he used. I guess he was just a huge fucking weeping pussy, right? Since you clearly know so much more about the strategic problems facing Starfleet than he did, right?

Hey, guess what dipshit - you don't have to be the strongest possible opponent in order to cause a huge security problem for the Federation. If the Cardassians tie down enough of Starfleet, that leaves the Federation that much more vulnerable against the Romulans, or maybe a bunch of other clownshoe powers like the Breen. Especially after the Federation lost a whole bunch of ships just a few months ago and Starfleet is already usually thinly spread.


I'll ask again because I really want a straight and clear answer to this:

Do you believe that no government ever has the right to cede settled/occupied territory to another?

EDIT: I should clarify that if you don't, then we probably have no basis for agreement and this becomes a futile discussion.

[shaun dunn]

hello. i have been lurking for a while and decided finally register to throw my two cents in this discussion.

I think the problem that some of you are forgetting with the maquis is that they are not federation citizens. And that is the problem.

In the epsiode Journey's End picard told the colonists that they would no longer be citizens of the federation. that they would become defacto cardassian citizens. This means that the federation has washed it's hands clean of them. this is a two way street. the federation doesn't have to protect them but it doesn't have get involved when they caused trouble either. remember how the maquis started? it was in preemptive strike. the cardassains had their colonists beat, rape and murder the ex-federation colonists so they would move and the cardassaians could put their people there instead. When the maquis formed it was only the colonists who were in it and it was an internal matter for cardassia. they were treating their citizens like shit and the citizens were not taking any more. they knew what picard had said and listened. rather than go crawling to the federation they went to the blackmarket bought weapons and defended themselves. when the cardassians went to the federation for help the response should have been: "you are reaping what you have sown. you wanted those worlds and were willing to accept the people on them. now that you are getting your ass kicked for being racist assholes you are getting your just desserts" . it should not be "sure we will help you oppress the people you are treating like shit even though it goes against everything we stand for and is strictly an internal matter" .

I mean it is like if america gave up pueto rico, and pueto rico and cuba went at it.(not likely, but the nearest example i could think of.) america has no responbility for the actions of pueto rico when it leaves our influence. it is the same with the maquis and the federation. not federation citizens, not a federation problem.

In addition with exception of ro and eddington(probably a few others that i don't remember) the majority of starfleet personel in the maquis are exstarfleet. they resigned their commission and join the maquis. they did not as a whole desert. they quit then went and joined the maquis. if this makes them traitors then so is worf. he resigned and joined gowron's side in the klingon civil war. is he a traitor for feeling that that fight is worth fighting and not just ingoring? just because your people quit and then join a group fighting for their freedom and quality doesn't mean you throw a bitchfit like starfleet did. In fact i think most of the "desertions" happened only after the federation starting assisting the cardassians in oppressing it's citizens! true they were exfederation citizens but the fact remains they were now cardassian citizens and the cardassians were treating them like shit. I would think that most of the people here on this board would fight for thier freedom if it was being treated like the colonists were. I actually think that the federation trully spat on its ideals when it went so far as to actually assist in the oppression of another nations people.

well that is my two cents. it was phased better than when i tried to post it got lost.

I will try and be better latter when I am not as frustated.

[Alyeska]

FYI, several Maquis were in fact Federation citizens. They were sympathizers who deliberately joined the fight on the side of the Maquis. This largely came from Starfleet officers who joined.

[FaxModem1]

The Maquis/Cardassian conflict was basically an internal Cardassian matter, which should have meant zero Federation involvement. The fact that the majority of the Maquis were former Federation citizens is immaterial. Frankly, its the Texas Revolution, several Americans moved into Mexican territory, and then rebelled and tried to become their own nation.

The difference is that the Maquis were originally part of the Federation before their land was sold over and that the Texan side one against Santa Anna. As opposed to the Cardassians getting help from a foreign power and wiping out the Maquis wholesale.

[Molyneux]

The Maquis/Cardassian conflict was basically an internal Cardassian matter, which should have meant zero Federation involvement. The fact that the majority of the Maquis were former Federation citizens is immaterial. Frankly, its the Texas Revolution, several Americans moved into Mexican territory, and then rebelled and tried to become their own nation.

The difference is that the Maquis were originally part of the Federation before their land was sold over and that the Texan side one against Santa Anna. As opposed to the Cardassians getting help from a foreign power and wiping out the Maquis wholesale.

Ah...weren't the Maquis living in Federation space that was then handed over to the Cardassians, without the consent of the people who lived there?

So it's not really the same thing as the Texas revolution at all. They didn't move there to create their own nation, they essentially got handed over to a foreign power by their own government.

[Molyneux]

Those colonists were all offered relocation by Starfleet to elsewhere in the Federation. Everyone of them who stayed behind did so of their own free will.

...yes, and? I fail to see how that is relevant. They still were attempting to defend their own homes, the colonies that they had built and lived in. The Federation may have had the ability (though it was a dick move) to renounce ownership of that territory, but I don't see how they have the right to hand over privately-owned colonies to the Cardassians.

[Purple]

They did not need to hand the Cardassians anything. I explained it quite clearly in my post.
They simply need to wash their hands and let who ever happens to be there take them over. And that is what they did, it just happened that they knew full well who the someone taking them over would be.

And that still does not justify Starfleet officers going gun ho and joining a terrorist organization.

[RedImperator]

Those colonists were all offered relocation by Starfleet to elsewhere in the Federation. Everyone of them who stayed behind did so of their own free will.

...yes, and? I fail to see how that is relevant. They still were attempting to defend their own homes, the colonies that they had built and lived in. The Federation may have had the ability (though it was a dick move) to renounce ownership of that territory, but I don't see how they have the right to hand over privately-owned colonies to the Cardassians.

Um, what? Since when? The colonists may be property owners (though it's never been established they "own" the whole planet, let alone the rest of the solar system), but the Federation is still the sovereign ruler and has the right to hand the territory over to anyone it pleases. These weren't member worlds, who presumably have some sovereign rights of their own and could veto a transfer, or declare independence; these were Federation territory, and disputed Federation territory at that.

[FaxModem1]

...yes, and? I fail to see how that is relevant. They still were attempting to defend their own homes, the colonies that they had built and lived in. The Federation may have had the ability (though it was a dick move) to renounce ownership of that territory, but I don't see how they have the right to hand over privately-owned colonies to the Cardassians.

Um, what? Since when? The colonists may be property owners (though it's never been established they "own" the whole planet, let alone the rest of the solar system), but the Federation is still the sovereign ruler and has the right to hand the territory over to anyone it pleases. These weren't member worlds, who presumably have some sovereign rights of their own and could veto a transfer, or declare independence; these were Federation territory, and disputed Federation territory at that.[/quote]

That brings up a good point, when separates a member world from colony world? Is Mars a member world or a colony world? Could, hypothetically, Mars be signed over to the Cardassians, Romulans, Ferengi, etc?

What does a planet have to do from being a colony to being a member?

[Thanas]

The ship designs are very rough, and releasing them so early was a mistake. Again, the pics get out without the attached explanations, and everyone assumes that they're going to see a blocky, spatula-shaped ship flying across the screen in the final product. The designs are a representation of the direction we were going in, were made in a program that isn't a big fan of curves, and were made by someone who is far from a professional (me).

To be honest, I don't think naming a ship the "Bismarck" fits with the federation, especially not with the ideals of it. (No matter how much I admire the man). Likewise, the dragonfly (the general concept sketches) looks more like a cross between a Starfury from B5 and something out of Freelancer. It looks like a pretty radical design change and I doubt audiences would be familiar with it.

Not that Abrams version was any superior, mind you.

[Sidewinder]

To be honest, I don't think naming a ship the "Bismarck" fits with the federation, especially not with the ideals of it. (No matter how much I admire the man).

Starfleet has named starships after all manner of historical ships, including the Hood (namesake), Yamato (namesake), Potemkin (namesake), etc. Having a German battleship as a namesake, is meant to emphasize the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural composition of Starfleet's crews.

[Thanas]

To be honest, I don't think naming a ship the "Bismarck" fits with the federation, especially not with the ideals of it. (No matter how much I admire the man).

Starfleet has named starships after all manner of historical ships, including the Hood (namesake), Yamato (namesake), Potemkin (namesake), etc. Having a German battleship as a namesake, is meant to emphasize the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural composition of Starfleet's crews.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. How does this in any way address my point? If you want a German name, why not choose one of the people who, you know, were not absolutely ruthless in pursuit of their goals? Schopenhauer, Kant, Mozart, Händel, Bach...heck, the list goes on and on. If you want to have a military commander, why not simply use a name that has less negative connotations like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Ziethen, Sedlitz, Clausewitz or any other German commander?

[Sidewinder]

If you want a German name, why not choose one of the people who, you know, were not absolutely ruthless in pursuit of their goals? Schopenhauer, Kant, Mozart, Händel, Bach...heck, the list goes on and on. If you want to have a military commander, why not simply use a name that has less negative connotations like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Ziethen, Sedlitz, Clausewitz or any other German commander?

Bismarck is viewed positively in the US. There's a city named for him in North Dakota, though Americans don't seem to know its namesake. (Homer Simpson once thought North Dakota had a city named "Hitler.")

[Metahive]

Well, they do have a USS Berlin in the main series so it's not like they totally forgot about Germany (unless it's referencing one of the Berlins in the USA). As for not naming a federation ship after Mr Blood and Iron himself, well, I could imagine that it would actually be fitting in the grimdark reimagined future scenario that was outlined here.

[Thanas]

If you want a German name, why not choose one of the people who, you know, were not absolutely ruthless in pursuit of their goals? Schopenhauer, Kant, Mozart, Händel, Bach...heck, the list goes on and on. If you want to have a military commander, why not simply use a name that has less negative connotations like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Ziethen, Sedlitz, Clausewitz or any other German commander?

Bismarck is viewed positively in the US. There's a city named for him in North Dakota, though Americans don't seem to know its namesake. (Homer Simpson once thought North Dakota had a city named "Hitler.")

What good does it do wether some german immigrants once named a city after him? And what good is US citizen knowledge or opinions (BTW, he is viewed positively in Germany as well) for finding out whether a name fits the ideology and symbols of the UFP? Pray tell me, how does Bismarck in any way fit the role of Federation hero, forebearer or ideologue?

[DougM]

To be honest, I don't think naming a ship the "Bismarck" fits with the federation, especially not with the ideals of it. (No matter how much I admire the man). Likewise, the dragonfly (the general concept sketches) looks more like a cross between a Starfury from B5 and something out of Freelancer. It looks like a pretty radical design change and I doubt audiences would be familiar with it.

You have a point there. The Bismarck name was chosen not only because it was German, but because it's the kind of name that denotes a more militaristic Starfleet. So it's not really supposed to line up with the Federation ideals we have all come to expect, it's supposed to show how those ideals have been perverted.

Never played Freelancer, but the quad engine design of the Dragonfly is definitely reminiscent of the Starfury (I am a huge B5 fan). Ours is bigger than a one-seat fighter, though, and the purpose of the ship is totally different. You're not going to see a Dragonfly turning on a dime and firing tiny maneuvering thrusters. Really we were just trying to jazz up the same old boring shuttlecraft design.

[Batman]

Let's see. Enterprise. Hood. Yamato. All of which are, I dunno warship names? Why does adding one that happens to be german for a change make that much of a difference?

[Thanas]

Let's see. Enterprise. Hood. Yamato. All of which are, I dunno warship names? Why does adding one that happens to be german for a change make that much of a difference?

Because none of them have the negative connotations of Bismarck, who after all started wars of aggression, was one of the most ruthless politicians of his era etc?

[Purple]

And what is negative about that? The man was a great hero of Germany and the mastermind behind the German reunification. If anything he is probably the single greatest person in recent German history.

Sure, he started wars of aggression but so did Richard the Lion heart, Julius Caesar, Napoleon and all manner of other guys. And yet to day they are hailed as great people of their time. And yes he was ruthless but that is what it takes to be great. You don't become a great politician by playing nice.

I really don't see how there is anything negative about him.

[Batman]

Which, incidentally, presupposes the Starfleet ships were named after the historical persons instead of the ships.

[Thanas]

And what is negative about that? The man was a great hero of Germany and the mastermind behind the German reunification. If anything he is probably the single greatest person in recent German history.

Sure, he started wars of aggression but so did Richard the Lion heart, Julius Caesar, Napoleon and all manner of other guys. And yet to day they are hailed as great people of their time. And yes he was ruthless but that is what it takes to be great. You don't become a great politician by playing nice.

I really don't see how there is anything negative about him.

Then you are either an ignoramus who knows perfectly little about the man or morally bankrupt. Seriously, read up on him. Yes, he was a great politician. Yes, he also is one of my favorite great man. Yes, he has rightfully earned his title as one of Germany's Finest. Does that mean I think he would make a great role model for the Federation? No.

Which, incidentally, presupposes the Starfleet ships were named after the historical persons instead of the ships.

Oh yes, because naming a UFP after a major Nazi icon and the pride of the Nazi fleet is such a great alternative.

[Batman]

The Japanese Empire of WW2 wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue either yet Starfleet saw nothing wrong with naming a Galaxy class after one of their icons.

[Thanas]

The Japanese Empire of WW2 wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue either yet Starfleet saw nothing wrong with naming a Galaxy class after one of their icons.

....assuming they did not mean the city, province, legend, spirit or ethnicity, all of which have less negative connotations.

[Batman]

The Japanese Empire of WW2 wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue either yet Starfleet saw nothing wrong with naming a Galaxy class after one of their icons.

....assuming they did not mean the city, province, legend, spirit or ethnicity, all of which have less negative connotations.

Yeah. I mean that would be obviously their first consideration. As opposed to, say, simply naming it after another ship by that name.