Transformers

This forum contains threads from main General Chat forum older than 3 months.

Moderator: thunderchero

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Transformers

Post by Peter1981 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:37 am

every nation has a right to wage war, and sue for peace.

User avatar
marhawkman
Commander
Commander
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:00 am

Re: Transformers

Post by marhawkman » Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:17 pm

Yep.... it's part of what makes you a nation.

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Transformers

Post by Peter1981 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:47 am

Yes I know its from the treaties of Westphalia which is the basis of western statehood.

MrGwangGwang
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Transformers

Post by MrGwangGwang » Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:46 am

Peter1981 wrote:every nation has a right to wage war, and sue for peace.
So according to you (and Marhawk), because every nation has the "right" to wage war, it doesn't matter if the said war is unjustified, immoral or serving some broader geopolitical purpose beyond the goals of national security and defence of the homeland?

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Transformers

Post by Peter1981 » Sat Nov 19, 2011 4:55 am

correct -- the 'every nation has a right to wage war...' has been the basis of international relation for a very long time. albeit i didn't say it was my personal view, nither is it the actuality and reality of modern statehood, libya and iraq in recent years show howinterventionism in internal affairs has change 'the how' and 'the why' wars are conducted. -- however the Prime Directive (non-interference directive) shows that star trek's (utopian) federation has always subscribed to the non-interventionist view. i.e. let other do what they will and only get involved if it affect us.

MrGwangGwang
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Transformers

Post by MrGwangGwang » Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:45 am

The "right" to wage war has not been the basis of international relations at all. In fact, those who are instrumental in bringing about a state of war, and funding of the same, is really what's at issue here and represents the true basis of "international relations". I'm referring to the International Bankers of course, who have financed all major wars dating back to the Napoleonic era. For the past few decades however, war has become somewhat obsolete, now that they have the economic and financial control mechanisms in place to pillage entire nations without even firing a single bullet i.e. The World Bank, The IMF, The Federal Reserve Bank, The European Monetary Union etc. You need only refer to the recent "global financial crisis" to get an insight into how these bankers operate:

Crisis creation [Contraction of the money supply] >>> Nation Capitulation [Bailout Guarantees] >>> Perpetual Debt and further crisis.

Those nations (Iraq, Libya and later Iran) who fall outside these newly established economic control mechanisms are subject to the plight of U.S. military occupation and N.A.T.O. aerial bombardments - this has nothing to do with America's "right" to declare war. The International Banking Cartel is merely employing the military alternative to its usual, seemingly benign tactic, of economic oppression whilst also laying the groundwork for the Arab Common Market set for implementation in 2020.

To further reinforce the irrelevancy of a nation's "right" to wage war I draw your attention to the Iraq War 2003, the legality of which has been intensely debated. Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the U.N. stated in 2004: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the Charter point of view, it was illegal". It was also asserted that a new Security Council Resolution be passed before military action could commence. Such a resolution was never obtained. So, from a strictly legal standpoint, the "right" to wage war was not just irrelevant - the "right" didn't exist to begin with - but the U.S. went ahead with the war anyhow.

Your Star Trek "Utopia" is nothing more than an advanced version of what the International Bankers seek on Earth today: One World Government, erosion of National Sovereignty, the eradication of an individual's right to private ownership etc. Indeed, Lt. Cmdr Eddington summed it up nicely: "You know In some ways you're even worse than the Borg. At least they tell you about their plans for assimilation. You're more insidious. You assimilate people and they don't even know it. The Klingons favour war, the Cardassians prefer invasion and subjugation, the Federation prefer chit-chat and cultural assimilation - so what's the difference? You spoke of the non-interventionist policy of the Federation but they have done nothing but intervene in the affairs of the various cultures they encounter - that's how they expand - and without firing a single photon torpedo ;)

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Transformers

Post by Peter1981 » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:39 am

my point was about the historic issue of soveringty not modern international relationships. You are correct that Iraq 2 was considered dubious by a number of international partner (e.g. France) However there was a large coalittion (US, UK,.... tonga) that supported the war.

w.r.t the federation i always felt the double standard was sumed up after Admiral Pressman said, 'I have friends at Starfleet' and Captain Picard's responce show the dubious standard, 'You'll need them.' completely acknowledges the nepotism.

MrGwangGwang
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Lieutenant-Junior Grade
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 1:22 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Transformers

Post by MrGwangGwang » Sun Nov 20, 2011 2:31 pm

Okay so now the issue is not whether a country has the "right" to wage war but whether they have ample support :roll: . Indeed, the U.S. mustered a certain amount of token support for the purposes of appeasing their own population and to be able to declare to the world: "We're not going it alone" i.e. A PR stunt. However, since the war was declared illegal by the United Nations, the support for the war is irrelevant since the U.S. and its supporters were acting outside the boundaries of International Law.

As for the the issue of "historic sovereignty" and modern "international relations" I've already addressed the reality of those issues in my previous post.

In relation to the Feds I recommend watching the DS9 Section 31 episodes :o i.e. Inquisition, Inter Arma and Extreme Measures. I think you'll find them informative.

User avatar
Kojote
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:06 pm
Location: Wilhelmshaven, Northern Germany
Contact:

Re: Transformers

Post by Kojote » Tue Nov 22, 2011 8:19 pm

I don't think that Roddenberry ever thought about something like Section 31 and I also think that he disliked the concept of 'sovereignty' as a root of patriotism (which leads to racism easily).
But that's a personal opionion about him based solely on experiencing his ideas.
Or maybe it's more of a projection of my own thoughts...

As it is mankind seems to be to childish to let go off 'might' and focus on something else. But visions like Star Trek may help to change that a little faster than evolution alone (if evolution would change it at all, since this concept isn't prepared to deal with a mutation like intelligence).

User avatar
QuasarDonkey
Code Analyst
Code Analyst
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Transformers

Post by QuasarDonkey » Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:13 am

I agree, I don't think the later stuff was Roddenberry's vision of the future where humanity had grown up.

To draw some interesting parallels though, the Federation is modeled on the United States: it's a constitutional republic with many semi-autonomous member states, government is comprised of a judiciary branch (Federation courts), an executive (President of Earth, etc.), a legislative branch (Federation Council), and various umbrella organisations like Starfleet (for science/military).

Interestingly, the one thing they don't have is banks, whom MrGwangGwang asserts is a "hidden-hand" in world events, funding various wars, causing great depressions, colluding with the governments to rob states for their finances via bailouts, etc.
Kojote wrote:But visions like Star Trek may help to change that a little faster than evolution alone
I'd like to think so.

But this all reminds me of what Bill Cooper said about Star Trek being "socialist indoctrination" for the masses. :o He could be right. Is socialism a good or bad thing?

But could Star Trek's system without money work? I think so. Just look at the community here at AFC. People working together, not for profit or for fame, but for the challenge, to better yourself (and BotF), and the desire to help the community. Or just look at the entire Free Software movement for a much bigger example (Linux, BSD, Firefox, OpenOffice, and tens of thousands of other programs -- most written without any financing).

User avatar
Peter1981
Rear-Admiral
Rear-Admiral
Posts: 1118
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 2:00 am
Location: England

Re: Transformers

Post by Peter1981 » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:38 am

one little point the UFoP was originally concieved as similar to the British Commonwealth but with an elected head and a more democratic structure by Gene Roddenberry. However the Starfleet is clearly a parallel of the US (interventionist) military of the sixties. So I'm not trying to argue the right and wrongs of International law/relations; I'm merely suggesting the origins these ideas.

Regarding working to better yourself and the community I agree with you QD; however, currency is a measure of production's excess and :. can be measured and shared with currency. The beauty of the 18th-19th century revolution in England of Banking allowed excess production (i.e. money) to be pooled and distributed to provide finance to biusness to increase growth. Which in turn returned a small ~3% return to the investor and also improved the conditions of the average person. In fact we owe a huge debt to Victorian bankers philantropy for the current high standards of living not just here in the UK but across the world.

User avatar
marhawkman
Commander
Commander
Posts: 463
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:00 am

Re: Transformers

Post by marhawkman » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:10 am

In theory, Socialism is a perfect society.

In practice, it fails horribly because of human greed. It's been tried several times, but inevitably you end up with a corrupt government who exploits the people.

But yeah I think of Socialism every time I hear "Social program"....

User avatar
Kojote
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:06 pm
Location: Wilhelmshaven, Northern Germany
Contact:

Re: Transformers

Post by Kojote » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:16 am

QuasarDonkey wrote:I'd like to think so.
Then do think so.
Humanity is like a 2 year old learning to walk upright and its parents like to think it doesn't need diapers anymore. Which leads to a predictable mess sometimes.
But like any baby even humanity learns out of failures.
QuasarDonkey wrote:But this all reminds me of what Bill Cooper said about Star Trek being "socialist indoctrination" for the masses. :o He could be right. Is socialism a good or bad thing?
An Idea or vision in itself isn't good or bad. Socialism is an interesting idea. Even 'bad' ideas liek racism are worth thinking about them.
Its when a vision or idea becomes a dogma when the problems begin.
QuasarDonkey wrote:But could Star Trek's system without money work? I think so. Just look at the community here at AFC. People working together, not for profit or for fame, but for the challenge, to better yourself (and BotF), and the desire to help the community. Or just look at the entire Free Software movement for a much bigger example (Linux, BSD, Firefox, OpenOffice, and tens of thousands of other programs -- most written without any financing).
The point of Roddenberrys idea in my opinion is: No money.
Money is neccessary for a civilization to develop because it enables trade. But when the civilization reaches a global level the disadvantages predominate.
Money equals power. More than everything else. Even more than being good one chosen speaker or something.
To exchange the concept of currency with something that cannot be hoarded will be a neccessary step for humanity to grow up.

User avatar
Kojote
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 1:06 pm
Location: Wilhelmshaven, Northern Germany
Contact:

Re: Transformers

Post by Kojote » Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:25 am

marhawkman wrote:In theory, Socialism is a perfect society.

In practice, it fails horribly because of human greed. It's been tried several times, but inevitably you end up with a corrupt government who exploits the people.

But yeah I think of Socialism every time I hear "Social program"....
Uh... Platitude. Sorry.
I hear this about socialism every time and its almost true. But not quite.
Socialism failed because it didn#t take human greed into account and didn't develop counter mechanisms against it or something to channel it another way.

And curiously people refer almost exclusively to the Soviets when the tell that 'it has been tried several times'. Maybe since it hasn't been tried nearly as often as every fucking other concept in existence.
But opposed to these other concepts it worked at least once. In Ukrane before they got visited by the Red Army after the Russian Revolution people just lived socialism for a while. Not institutionalized. But effective enough to send trains full of grain into starving Russia.

And then again...
Socialism isn't communism. Socialism is just an idea like democracy. Or monarchy.
It no more than a base for thinking further.

Ahh... In moments like this I feel that it could be time for a new version of the STar Trek vision. The next level. A modernized new vision taking into account everything what happened in the last 50 years and reneweing Roddenberrys ideas accordingly.

Volunteers? :roll:

User avatar
QuasarDonkey
Code Analyst
Code Analyst
Posts: 433
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: Transformers

Post by QuasarDonkey » Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:48 pm

There is a new vision of Star Trek. Here's what it looks like:

:o

I think Roddenberry must be turning in his grave.

Post Reply

Return to “General Chat Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users