Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Incite Civil Unrest on Cursa
05-08-2012, 06:02 PM
Today is the first time I've stumbled upon this assignment while traveling through Eta Edriani and quite frankly I'm surprised this assignment exists. As a trekkie, this assignment is something I could never imagine the Federation or Starfleet ever doing, regardless of how bad the situation with the Klingons may be.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
05-08-2012, 06:39 PM
There were several examples of Starfleet doing just this, most notably between Enterprise and TOS. Archer armed and rallied a conquered colony against the Klingon Empire and incited disloyalty among the Xindi. Kirk armed a disputed colony on the logic that since the Klingons already interfered, the Prime Directive allowed equal interference under the rarely cited tit for tat amendment. Picard did things more subtly, filling oppressed individuals heads with hope and inviting their oppressors to question themselves and their leaders, hoping the right thing would follow. Sisko prompted worlds under the Dominion's influence to stand up for themselves, and Stafleet sanctioned the instigation of a full out rebellion on Cardassia.

It's underhanded, but it makes the distinction between conqueror and liberator clearer when the people involved are clamoring for a change of regime.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
05-08-2012, 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
There were several examples of Starfleet doing just this, most notably between Enterprise and TOS. Archer armed and rallied a conquered colony against the Klingon Empire and incited disloyalty among the Xindi. Kirk armed a disputed colony on the logic that since the Klingons already interfered, the Prime Directive allowed equal interference under the rarely cited tit for tat amendment. Picard did things more subtly, filling oppressed individuals heads with hope and inviting their oppressors to question themselves and their leaders, hoping the right thing would follow. Sisko prompted worlds under the Dominion's influence to stand up for themselves, and Stafleet sanctioned the instigation of a full out rebellion on Cardassia.

It's underhanded, but it makes the distinction between conqueror and liberator clearer when the people involved are clamoring for a change of regime.
We can ignore what Archer did as it happened before the Prime Directive was created so Archer never broke any laws of the Federation.

For Kirk, Picard and Sisko, all three had to follow the Prime Directive which means they cannot interfere with other civilizations unless the people from that civilization directly asks for the Federation's assistance or in Kirk's case, a third party had already interefered. That is why Picard had to be subtle and Sisko did not act until Damar asked for Starfleet's assistance with the Cardassian rebellion. You can call it underhanded, but nevertheless it is a distinction.

My gripe is mainly with the word "incite" as it suggests Starfleet is directly causing civil unrest.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:23 AM.