Page 7 of 7

Re: In defense of the A_hole directive

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:42 pm
by mwhittington
KuvahMagh wrote:
How exatcly was Worf breaking the PD. He is a klingon, fighting another klingon in a traditional klingon way.
He is a Starfleet Officer who regardless of ANYTHING else became involved in Klingon internal affairs. Regardless of why he was fighting his fighting had an immediate impact on the future Government of the Empire. If he wanted to behave as a Klingon at the drop of a hat he should have never joined Starfleet.
It wasn't exactly at the drop of a hat. His mate was killed, and he acted in accordance with Klingon traditions. He was a Klingon first, and even though he was raised by humans, he is still a Klingon.
As a husband, I don't know if I wouldn't have done the same thing, but God help whoever hurts my wife because no one else will.

Re: In defense of the A_hole directive

Posted: Mon Jun 02, 2008 6:50 pm
by Aaron
Mikey wrote:[

Erm... there were a couple of small, insignificant towns - like New York, for example - which were originally Dutch colonies.

Indeed, part of France's motivation was unquestionly simply to oppose Britain on another front. They had been fighting for centuries and would continue to fight the British right up until Napolean was deposed for a second time. Even if they didn't get colonies out of it, they would tie down Britains incredibly tiny Army and exstensive Navy for years, which is a good deal for what it actually cost them.

Re: In defense of the A_hole directive

Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 12:34 am
by Teaos
Its like the old saying "I support france and anyone who fights England" It can be adapted to any countries.

Re: In defense of the A_hole directive

Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:19 pm
by Monroe
Mikey wrote:
Monroe wrote: Hate to break this to ya but France only helped because they wanted new colonies. I'm much more grateful to the dutch who helped wanting only a new trading market.
Erm... there were a couple of small, insignificant towns - like New York, for example - which were originally Dutch colonies.
Yeah but the dutch by that time had switched colonial practices towards trading and didn't have reconquest on their minds. That's how I understand it anyhow.

Re: In defense of the A_hole directive

Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:32 pm
by Mikey
Monroe wrote: Yeah but the dutch by that time had switched colonial practices towards trading and didn't have reconquest on their minds. That's how I understand it anyhow.
That does sound right. I was merely pointing out that colonialism was as much a part of trade expansion as of political conquest.