posted
Personally, I'd guess he was bluffing with that. Kirk may not know his history, and thought he could get away with telling the guy that he worked for what Kirk thought just MIGHT have been a current space agency, instead of having to say he was from the future.
------------------ Pilot: You're sure they were Americans, eh? Fraser: They were all wearing new boots, they were driving a Jeep Wrangler, and they carried big guns. Pilot: Americans it is. - "due South"
posted
Actually, perhaps Starfleet does cover all the various military aspects of the Federation. I mean, we're unsually only ever shown the navy, but why would they refer to that as "Starfleet" and the marines-like bit as "Starfleet marines" and not the ships as part of the "Starfleet navy"?
I think, at least when talking about the military part of it, actual UFP people would use the term "Starfleet" the way we use "military", covering everything. If they needed to be more specific, they would use the terms "marines", "navy", &c. The reason we don't see the other branches is that only the navy is responsible for the exploration part of SF. Whatever other "marines", "army", &c. Starfleet has, they're strictly military in function.
------------------ "You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -Yasir Arafat on religious wars
You also have to understand: contrary to popular belief, there are only three branches of the US Military:
The Army The Air Force The Navy
Sorry folks, the Coast Guard is DOT -- Department of Transportation.
And the U.S. Marine Corps is part of the Navy. Of course, we don't say "send in the Navy!", but that's what we mean. We specify the Marines ... as someone in the 24th century might say "Starfleet Marines" to distinguish from "Merchant Marines" or along those lines.
So I can definitly see the Fed Council using "Starfleet" as a broad term, then specifying Marines ... or would the Admirality do that when planning the specifics of a mission? Argh. Okay, I'm going to go watch the "Highlander: Director's Cut" laserdisc I bought off eBay for $10 ...
------------------ You wouldn't understand. It's a Jeep thing.
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited October 23, 2000).]
posted
Perhaps we have the dept of Starfleet, with ships and 'response forces' aka Marines, evidence already listed supports this.
But, wouldn't each planet, or at least those in border areas also need an army? It wouldn't have to be a "federal" army, but I'd expect the UFP would want some level of control. You'd at least want enough trained troops to repel the Cardies or whomever from dropping a couple thousand troops in and ruining your whole day.
These local 'guard' units wouldn't even need to be equiped to leave the planet they are stationed on....
TK
[This message has been edited by Toadkiller (edited October 23, 2000).]
posted
Maybe the name Starfleet is just a name that is a control sort of thing - directing the different facets of the Federation that generally include frontier and domestic movements!?! How general was that
Andrew
------------------ "I threw bitter tears at the ocean But all that came back was the tide..." 'I Will Not Forget You' Sarah McLachlan
posted
I think they'd have all of todays forces, branches, departments, etc in the future plus some under different names and/or forms. Take Section 31 aka CIA/NSA/Black Ops for instance. Instead of them being officially recognized, they're a hidden part of SF few know of.
------------------ Where's the bathroom on this ship?
posted
I think a local "militia" would be more in line for that line of thinking.
How about this theory?
The Federation calls for "mutual protection" among its members. This is done by each Member World providing for: "large support" (aka, Starfleet), and "local support" (aka themselves).
Each member worlds pays the Federation Council X# of credits per year. These credits are used for Federation wide social programs, et al, as well as Starfleet (A Federation Member tax, shall we say).
Each member world is allowed to support its own military, with a few restrictions: one, any independent military is not such -- they ultimitly fall under the command of a Starfleet "Joint Services" commander in times of crisis; two, they are limited in size based on the Member Worlds' colonial holdings and population; three, they are limited in what area they can patrol in (i.e.: if an Andorian cruiser wandered into Bolian space, there'd be a problem).
------------------ You wouldn't understand. It's a Jeep thing.
posted
Back to the Colenal... Many, including most of those who have posted in this topic, feel that Col. West is the strongest proof of a Federation Marines (army or some type of ground force with a different ranking structure than the naval Starfleet) in the Star Trek canon. But is he canon? I mean we argue about the canonicity of stuff that to me is obviously not canon (does not appear on screen an in many cases is created by people whose only link to Trek is that they paid a sufficient amount to gain the license to create and distribute certain Trek products), but this is a case of a true grey area. There are two different versions of the events that happened during the Kitomer talks. Remember the theatrical release had the West parts cut and a Kilingon actually did try to kill the Fed. President Because of video, more people on this board are accustomed to the West version, but there is a valid argument that the theatrical cut is true canon.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I say the scene with Admirals Nogura and Kirk in TMP should be canon. After all, the scene was filmed.
'Colonel' West could be been a member for Section 31. For all we know, he was a Starfleet officer who worked with S31 (like Bashir) and was picked by S31 to present the rescue plans to the President. It's still just a theory. But you never know...
------------------ "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
posted
I agree, that if a scene is cut and not inserted in a version of the film, it is un-cannon, but once it is released in a recut version of the film, it becomes canon.
I like the idea of West being 31. Cartwright too, perhaps?
------------------ "[Smith] ran on an agenda that was revolutionary for his time -- a 45 cent minimum wage, limiting the workweek to six days, building a bridge to the 1930's -- and I want to say it's quite a tribute to Al Smith that Governor Bush has adopted the same agenda." - Al Gore
posted
I don't. Oh, it's possible, sure, as we know, or at least think we know, that Section 31 existed then. But to force them into previous stories like this makes a mess of whatever motivations the characters in the story were supposed to have. In other words, it doesn't add anything to the film to have someone like Cartwright working for S31. But it does detract from Cartwright's character and his role in the film. By making him just a member in an already shadowy organization, we absolve him of his responsibilty, and we render the movie's end hollow.
posted
What I meant to say is that Colonel West unknowingly presented a plan possibly created by S31. One of his fellow officers could have worked for them and recomended West for the job. S31 could have been impressed or had their eye on him for some job he did. They agreed and used West, unaware that West was part of the Anti-Peace Conspiracy, to present the plan.
I'm guessing if this works, this would have been S31's only appearence in ST6. As before, you never know...
------------------ "I find your lack of faith disturbing."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
