So that was pretty much the most underhanded thing we've ever done

[Kaiphantom]

Realistic because it was realistic. You see this sort of thing going on even today. The US bombing of Libya for instance. Very dumb for a country that has economic problems and is already involved in two other wars.

And the Stargate series hasn't been about that kind of "realism"... ever. Hence, not realistic for Stargate. Essentially, you just said, "I like this episode because it doesn't fit in with any other stargate episode!"

Ah well, I suppose this episode really puts the nail in the coffin. The writers were bound and determined to go a complete 180 from what made them popular and well-liked. Perhaps, like JM, they got tired of Stargate, yet couldn't just walk away. Thus the idea was born to chase away most of the fans so the network would cancel the show. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, we'll get some fresh writers in who aren't as tired of the franchise, and are willing to go back and give us something new, that also retains what made the series great and successful.

[Wayston]

I reasonably liked the episode, I didn't mind the underhandedness although it did not make that much sense to me either. I do appreciate the upcoming moral dilemma's where our technological superiority gives us a lot of leighway to take advantage or defraud other societies. Hey I wish they maybe had done a show about that instead of focussing on some far flung corner of the galaxy which accidentally has 70 people in it

I do get the impression that I've been getting about a whole lot of other Stargate episodes which is that the writers/show runners just decide in the abstract "let's do an episode involving ......". Then they write a concrete script to support that abstract idea. That looks like a normal writing process so far, but then their main criterion for keeping that script seems to be more about whether or not it fits the abstract idea, and they see no problem in using a suboptimal script it it as long as they feel it captures their vague idea even if the content is not as good or plausible as it could be. They then defend themselves afterwards (not always incorrectly) that it's their show, that you can't please everyone, that viewers always see plotholes where there are none, etc.

In this episode the moral slippery slope is sliding so fast that it starts feeling unrealistic and perhaps even nonsensical (because we've been focusing on the Destiny), even though the abstract idea behind it is very good.

I'm not 100% sure how the stargate writing/production is organised but they should have some separation of powers. Now I get the impression that sometimes they let scripts slide because it was made by another show runner that they perhaps wouldn't let pass in the version it was if it came from an outsider.

[Flyboy]

Don't want to get into this too much, since this isn't an SGA thread and I want to remain on topic, but.... The only possible thing that argument could apply to, would be the whole turning-wraith-into-humans thing. And thus, I'd argue it doesn't apply, since the wraith were enemies. The only other possibility is the Horizon attack on the Asurans, but that was from above and our heroes had no say.

If you have something else in mind, feel free to present it.

Hell, if they were darker in nature, they would have taken that ZPM from those boys, but they didn't. Not even when threatened with the wraith attack at the end of season 1!

Realistically, if we're going to look at the exploits of Earth personnel in the Gateverse, we CANNOT use the excuse of 'they were the enemy'. We have laws of war for a reason. Whilst the Wraith were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions all that means is that it was not ILLEGAL to engage in experimentation on Prisoners of War. The immorality is still extremely present, if we take the Just War principles, the founding ideas behind much of the conventions already stated as well as the UN Charter, much of what Atlantis did within the Pegasus galaxy would be found to be unjust. The excuse 'they were the enemy' is never viable in war. The Atlantis crew engaged in some pretty tasteless stuff with individuals who were, by our own definitions, no longer active combatants.

You also mention the attack on the Asurans and say it was from above, what that proves is that HWC is still very much in favour of such unjust operations - preventative, rather than pre-emptive strikes are extremely wooly in terms of legitimacy, and I'll also remind you that Sheppard was entirely supportive of the operation.

People all too often, as has been demonstrated in this thread, make the mistake of assuming that just because it is claimed that an immoral act is realistic, that it is being asserted that ONLY such immoral acts will be undertaken. That would in fact be unrealistic. Realism in a show like Stargate requires both extremely moral decissions, such as not taking the ZPM from the tribe of children, and immoral decisions like experiementation on POWs.

The bombing of Libya is real. The U.S. and a lot of the world are having economic problems. We are in a couple wars. All those things are real.

Not sure how that relates, how it negates 15 years of SGC backstory, or how it makes the mission goal of "see we told you so, we didn't kill all your people, now you can trust us" in this episode any less ridiculous.

It DOESN'T negage 15 years worth of back story. As I've mentioned, the SGC and Atlantis have never been entirely squeeky clean, they've always had their dark moments. O'Neill and Fifth for example? But I have three further arguments to be forward. As I believe has already been mentioned, we've never seen Earth in a position where it was the dominant power in the galaxy before. Now we have. Greater power makes it much easier to decide when to bend and flex the rules - case in point the US and UK engaging in an ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq in 2003. Second point, there have been numerous times when officers and personnel outside the direct SGC chain of command have demonstrated amoral or immoral conduct, often concerning alien species - for example Teal'c and the several times attempts were made to autopsy him. Or in The Last Man, when the decision was essentially made to abandon the peoples of Pegasus, as a development of this, the SGC may have managed to remain extremely moral for a good period of time, but they're now merely a small cog in a larger machine. Homeworld Command is a new organisation, staffed by all manner of different personnel. It is not the SGC making these decisions, it is HWC. Third point, the world became a much less naive place following the real world 9/11, particularly America. After those terrorist attacks the US and UK have undertaken questionable activities - because they have felt threatened. A certain phone call was made to, I believe, Pakistan, by the US government which was essentially a threat - 'you're either with us, or against us'. Within the Gateverse, Earth has just come under an assymetric attack (I hesitate to use the word 'terrorist' as the target was a military one). It does not surprise me AT ALL that having just recovered from such a high profile attack on US home soil, the US woild be willing to engage in an immoral operation for fear of the Lucian Alliance's next actions.

And the Stargate series hasn't been about that kind of "realism"... ever. Hence, not realistic for Stargate. Essentially, you just said, "I like this episode because it doesn't fit in with any other stargate episode!"

Ah well, I suppose this episode really puts the nail in the coffin. The writers were bound and determined to go a complete 180 from what made them popular and well-liked. Perhaps, like JM, they got tired of Stargate, yet couldn't just walk away. Thus the idea was born to chase away most of the fans so the network would cancel the show. Perhaps in 5 or 10 years, we'll get some fresh writers in who aren't as tired of the franchise, and are willing to go back and give us something new, that also retains what made the series great and successful.

I disagree, as I have tried to illustrate, the seeds have ALWAYS been there, and now that Earth is enagaged in an intersteller assymetric war, I am not surprised things have gone the way they have. SG1 showed us a heroic side to Earth's efforts, but it was by no means the only side.

And the whole 'nail in the coffin' thing is merely YOUR opinion, thankyou.

[The_Asgard_live]

Realistically, if we're going to look at the exploits of Earth personnel in the Gateverse, we CANNOT use the excuse of 'they were the enemy'. We have laws of war for a reason. Whilst the Wraith were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions all that means is that it was not ILLEGAL to engage in experimentation on Prisoners of War. The immorality is still extremely present

I'm sorry, but I think you miss the point of the experimentation on the Wraith. There is no meaningful direct comparison. Would it be wrong to experiment on POWs in the real world. Yes. In Gateverse, the Wraith's survival depends on eating human beings. There is no negotiating with that. There is no coexisting with that. There are 2 choices, genocide, or change their diet. There isn't really a gray area.

Second point, there have been numerous times when officers and personnel outside the direct SGC chain of command have demonstrated amoral or immoral conduct, often concerning alien species - for example Teal'c and the several times attempts were made to autopsy him.

Doesn't O'neill head up HWC? Why would that character sign off on this mission?

Homeworld Command is a new organisation, staffed by all manner of different personnel. It is not the SGC making these decisions, it is HWC.

Again, doesn't O'neill head that up?

Within the Gateverse, Earth has just come under an assymetric attack (I hesitate to use the word 'terrorist' as the target was a military one). It does not surprise me AT ALL that having just recovered from such a high profile attack on US home soil, the US woild be willing to engage in an immoral operation for fear of the Lucian Alliance's next actions.

The LA was going to blow up, what? A city? East Coast? The Goa'uld sent an asteriod to blow up the planet. Used several devices to try to blow up the Gate/SGC. Used biological weapons in children to destroy the SGC/planet etc... I could go on for several paragraphs before I even get to the Ori. The Goa'uld were terror personified. Do you remember when the Goa'uld scientist stopped talking like a Goa'uld and said "Oh, we don't have to talk like that", or when O'neill explained that Goa'uld weapons are designed to instill fear/terror where as the earth weapons were to maximize damage?

I find it hard to believe after 15 years of that, the LA and their cargo ship bomb is what drives HWC/SGC to immorality.

But lets not lose focus here.

The LA gaining access to the Langaran gate in NO WAY threatened earth. It threatened 80 people and a rust bucket ship (who are seemingly in constant danger by things other than the LA anyway).

There were alternative means to neutralize that threat, and the ultimate goal of the 'immoral' mission wasn't one of them. In fact, it put earth in greater danger by risking turning allies into enemies (allies with a planet rich in highly explosive bomb making materials).

The mission goals were dumb for fantasy, dumb for real life and doesn't fit with 15 years of back story.

[Flyboy]

I'm sorry, but I think you miss the point of the experimentation on the Wraith. There is no meaningful direct comparison. Would it be wrong to experiment on POWs in the real world. Yes. In Gateverse, the Wraith's survival depends on eating human beings. There is no negotiating with that. There is no coexisting with that. There are 2 choices, genocide, or change their diet. There isn't really a gray area.

I'm missing no points what so ever. You are confusing necessity with morality. At the end of the day, the Wraith are a sentient species. I don't disagree with the idea of the experiments, but at the same time you would be fooling yourself if you tried to pass it off as morally acceptable. Wrong thing for right reasons does not equate to 'Just'. The key point is, this demonstrates that Earth has not been squeeky clean in the past.

Doesn't O'neill head up HWC? Why would that character sign off on this mission?

Again, doesn't O'neill head that up?

Rewatch all of SG1 - O'Neill was very often the one gunning for the morally grey/immoral course of action, only to be reigned in by Jackson and/or Carter. The man is former black ops - this is what he does. Hell, on his first ever mission he was going to commit genocide by detonating a nuclear device on Abydos.

The LA was going to blow up, what? A city? East Coast? The Goa'uld sent an asteriod to blow up the planet. Used several devices to try to blow up the Gate/SGC. Used biological weapons in children to destroy the SGC/planet etc... I could go on for several paragraphs before I even get to the Ori. The Goa'uld were terror personified. Do you remember when the Goa'uld scientist stopped talking like a Goa'uld and said "Oh, we don't have to talk like that", or when O'neill explained that Goa'uld weapons are designed to instill fear/terror where as the earth weapons were to maximize damage?

I find it hard to believe after 15 years of that, the LA and their cargo ship bomb is what drives HWC/SGC to immorality.

Sure, and the SGC overcame all those problems pretty easily. Don't confuse terrorism with terror tactics, they're different. The Goa'uld was a conventional enemy. The Lucian Alliance have engaged in assymetric warfare, and they've SUCCESFULLY struck at the head of US military power. When has anyone every come close to doing that before in the Gateverse? The only thing I can think of, in THIS reality, is the destruction of Area 51 - hardly the same, particularly as it was again, part of a conventional battle.

The LA gaining access to the Langaran gate in NO WAY threatened earth. It threatened 80 people and a rust bucket ship (who are seemingly in constant danger by things other than the LA anyway).

There were alternative means to neutralize that threat, and the ultimate goal of the 'immoral' mission wasn't one of them. In fact, it put earth in greater danger by risking turning allies into enemies (allies with a planet rich in highly explosive bomb making materials).

The mission goals were dumb for fantasy, dumb for real life and doesn't fit with 15 years of back story.

I won't disagree here, the mission goals were not the best - it was not worth risking a profitable alliance on such a stunt, but I still maintain that it does not contradict 15 years of back story, I think you're just being an idealist. Once again, look at real world affairs, and tell me that governments aren't in the least bit contrary in terms of foreign policy.

[Phenom]

Was it an evil, underhanded thing to do that could potentially have wiped out an entire planet? Yep.

Was it a really smart plan nonetheless? Yep.

Would the US Government do something similar in real life given half a chance? Yep.

Did it make for a great ep? Hell yeah!

[blackluster]

I don't think we should underestimate the Lucian Alliance's role in how everything played out in terms of the underhanded actions Earth took. If one trusts O'Niel's previous characterization, then one would assume that he would never have signed off on such a plan unless he truly believed the Lucian Alliance was imminently about to drop the hammer on Langara. Looking at it broadly in that sense, the Lucian Alliance basically played the IOA and Homeworld Command. Their actions over an extended period induced such paranoia in HWC that Earth was basically goaded into the action on Langara. While the Lucian Alliance did not succeed in getting to destiny or cutting Earth's naquadah supplies, they did succeed in severely damaging the diplomatic relationship between Earth and Langara. Doing this on a large scale effectively isolates Earth, eliminating the friends they could normally turn to in a crisis

[The_Asgard_live]

I'm missing no points what so ever. You are confusing necessity with morality. At the end of the day, the Wraith are a sentient species. I don't disagree with the idea of the experiments, but at the same time you would be fooling yourself if you tried to pass it off as morally acceptable.

I don't think I am fooling myself at all. Again, there is no real-world direct comparison. The wraith while sentient are an enemy conjured out of thin air. They can be completely without redemption because that is how they are written. I think the experimentation was the moral choice. The only other alternative was genocide.

1. Wraith can only feed on humans (not immoral per se)
2. Humans remove themselves from wraith territory, the wraith species dies (not immoral)
3. Humans kill all wraith to survive (not immoral)
4. Humans allow themselves to be eaten (dumb, but not immoral)
5. Humans modify the wraith so they can coexist without having to kill an entire species. How is that immoral? Isn't it less immoral than genocide of an entire species?

I don't know of any other options because they weren't written to have any other.

Rewatch all of SG1 - O'Neill was very often the one gunning for the morally grey/immoral course of action, only to be reigned in by Jackson and/or Carter. The man is former black ops - this is what he does. Hell, on his first ever mission he was going to commit genocide by detonating a nuclear device on Abydos.

Its called character growth. Rather than bring a nazi-like person into the SGC who could have benefited earth with his knowledge, he closed the Iris. He returned stolen tech to lesser and more advanced societies. He got pissy with Hammond when he thought the government acted immorally and killed the reporter that was going to expose the StarGate program. I could go on and on, but basically, he tried to do the right thing and was quoted as saying "we don't need their stuff, we do need them". I say, he is not a guy who would authorize that mission. Risk an entire planet to prove a point.

Sure, and the SGC overcame all those problems pretty easily. Don't confuse terrorism with terror tactics, they're different. The Goa'uld was a conventional enemy. The Lucian Alliance have engaged in assymetric warfare, and they've SUCCESFULLY struck at the head of US military power. When has anyone every come close to doing that before in the Gateverse? The only thing I can think of, in THIS reality, is the destruction of Area 51 - hardly the same, particularly as it was again, part of a conventional battle.

They UNSUCCESSFULLY struck. The bomb didn't go off. Not sure why you think trying to send bombs through the stargate to the SGC, or turn the gate itself into a bomb is any less a terror tactic than flying a bomb into HWC? Using children as explosives? Want realism, real terrorist use that in the real world.

I won't disagree here, the mission goals were not the best - it was not worth risking a profitable alliance on such a stunt, but I still maintain that it does not contradict 15 years of back story, I think you're just being an idealist. Once again, look at real world affairs, and tell me that governments aren't in the least bit contrary in terms of foreign policy.

This isn't the real world. Its as you call it, Gateverse.

[spaceship]

The bombing of Libya is real. The U.S. and a lot of the world are having economic problems. We are in a couple wars. All those things are real.

Not sure how that relates, how it negates 15 years of SGC backstory, or how it makes the mission goal of "see we told you so, we didn't kill all your people, now you can trust us" in this episode any less ridiculous.

Because it is human nature. Its an act of arrogance just like the wars the US is getting itself into. It's also not very smart. A collective brain fart if you will. Even Woolsey alludes to real world events when he talks about how the "spy satellites" mislead them about the real nature of Langaran and Lucian Alliance talks.

[The_Asgard_live]

Because it is human nature. Its an act of arrogance just like the wars the US is getting itself into. It's also not very smart. A collective brain fart if you will. Even Woolsey alludes to real world events when he talks about how the "spy satellites" mislead them about the real nature of Langaran and Lucian Alliance talks.

Not for nothing, but I would wager you probably don't think any war the U.S. has engaged in isn't arrogant. I just get that vibe.

Regardless, Gateverse is not the real-world. There was an episode where Hammond? or was it Davis said that the U.S. would not use its alien based tech against its earth based enemies? In what real-world would THAT happen? These are make believe rules, and the U.S./airforce/SGC are the good guys, been that way for 15 years. There have been rogue politicians and government agencies, and the good guys like O'neill have acted to put them down. Sorry. I didn't write it that way. But I like it.

[spaceship]

Not for nothing, but I would wager you probably don't think any war the U.S. has engaged in isn't arrogant. I just get that vibe.

Regardless, Gateverse is not the real-world. There was an episode where Hammond? or was it Davis said that the U.S. would not use its alien based tech against its earth based enemies? In what real-world would THAT happen? These are make believe rules, and the U.S./airforce/SGC are the good guys, been that way for 15 years. There have been rogue politicians and government agencies, and the good guys like O'neill have acted to put them down. Sorry. I didn't write it that way. But I like it.

Actually I agree with you. After I wrote that post I wondered whether I should edit it. Sure the ep matches what would happen in the real world. But your point that it doesn't match the "stargate way" is, of course, correct. Then again SGU is a little different from other stargate shows.

[Flyboy]

I don't think I am fooling myself at all. Again, there is no real-world direct comparison. The wraith while sentient are an enemy conjured out of thin air. They can be completely without redemption because that is how they are written. I think the experimentation was the moral choice. The only other alternative was genocide.

1. Wraith can only feed on humans (not immoral per se)
2. Humans remove themselves from wraith territory, the wraith species dies (not immoral)
3. Humans kill all wraith to survive (not immoral)
4. Humans allow themselves to be eaten (dumb, but not immoral)
5. Humans modify the wraith so they can coexist without having to kill an entire species. How is that immoral? Isn't it less immoral than genocide of an entire species?

I don't know of any other options because they weren't written to have any other.

I once again disagree. The Wraith were developed, particularly through Todd into quite an interesting race. Todd showed us (for want of a better word) the human side to the Wraith, showing us that they weren't beyond redemption. I still maintain you're confusing morality with necessity. Just because something is the only logical or practical option does not make it moral. It is NOT moral to forcably change the nature of a sentient society for one's own ends. Take the discussion between Keller and Todd regarding removing the Wraith's needs to feed on humans - it would have considerably consequences of an existential nature for Wraith society. Now granted, if undertaken willingly, that is one thing - but forcably would be immoral - if still practical and necessary.

Its called character growth. Rather than bring a nazi-like person into the SGC who could have benefited earth with his knowledge, he closed the Iris. He returned stolen tech to lesser and more advanced societies. He got pissy with Hammond when he thought the government acted immorally and killed the reporter that was going to expose the StarGate program. I could go on and on, but basically, he tried to do the right thing and was quoted as saying "we don't need their stuff, we do need them". I say, he is not a guy who would authorize that mission. Risk an entire planet to prove a point.

Oh please, he wasn't Nazi like in the slightest. Don't be so black and white. I put it to you that you're viewing this entire argument from a position of absolutes. No such reality exists. It was easy for O'Neill to make certain decisions when he wasn't the guy making the decisions, but now he's in a higher office, sometimes he has to make the morally ambigious calls - for example, essentially authorising torture on Telford.

They UNSUCCESSFULLY struck. The bomb didn't go off. Not sure why you think trying to send bombs through the stargate to the SGC, or turn the gate itself into a bomb is any less a terror tactic than flying a bomb into HWC? Using children as explosives? Want realism, real terrorist use that in the real world.

This isn't the real world. Its as you call it, Gateverse.

Trust me, I know what goes on in the real world in terms of military and terrorist threats. Sending bombs through the Stargate, or turning the gate into a bomb is a conventional attack at a front line target. The Pentagon is, though also operational in nature, a symbolic target. The bomb may not have gone off, but it represented the ability of a weaker enemy to hit right at the heart of US power. It is different, for the same reason that 9/11 is different to Pearl Harbour. For those in charge, it is one thing when one of your 'front line' installations comes under attack, but another when it's at the heart of your civilisation.

Furthermore, I was trying to highlight the difference between terror tactics - used by a conventional military force as a method of instilling terror in those that they are fighting conventionally in order to adversely affect moral (such as the staff weapons, and Goa'uld silly voices) and 'terrorism' which is a very different thing. The Royal Air Force and United States Army Air Force both arguably engaged in terror strategies during World War 2 in the bombings of Germany and Japan. I would not in any way, however, call those 'terrorist acts' becausse there is very much a difference.

[Kaiphantom]

Realistically, if we're going to look at the exploits of Earth personnel in the Gateverse, we CANNOT use the excuse of 'they were the enemy'. We have laws of war for a reason. Whilst the Wraith were not signatories to the Geneva Conventions or the Hague Conventions all that means is that it was not ILLEGAL to engage in experimentation on Prisoners of War. The immorality is still extremely present, if we take the Just War principles, the founding ideas behind much of the conventions already stated as well as the UN Charter, much of what Atlantis did within the Pegasus galaxy would be found to be unjust. The excuse 'they were the enemy' is never viable in war. The Atlantis crew engaged in some pretty tasteless stuff with individuals who were, by our own definitions, no longer active combatants.

You're still avoiding the main issue: We've never done anything like this to allies before, end of story. You can wax poetic about our treatment of enemies who want to use us as cattle, feed on on us, use us as hosts, assimilate our entire world... but when you're facing annihilation, you'll feel a bit differently towards your enemies.

So there's a key difference here that you're trying to smudge. The Langarans weren't our enemies.

And your inability to quote anything underhanded we've done to allies in Atlantis, pretty much speaks volumes that you know we didn't.

And the whole 'nail in the coffin' thing is merely YOUR opinion, thankyou.

You know, you're partially right... it is my opinion, and Asgard_live's opinion, and the opinion of most of the other people in this thread. Hell, some of the people even arguing it was realistic still think it was a stupid and crappy thing. You're pretty much in the minority, if not outright alone here.

You may want to consider that if the majority are saying something, it might actually have some basis in fact. SGU could use as many fans as it can get, so it might behoove some to honestly consider that the criticism of the majority might actually be valid. Perhaps this is one of the many myriad reasons why the fanbase shrunk and people stopped watching.

Sure, it's only our opinion. It's a cute sentiment to toss at someone "Well.. well... it's only YOUR opinion!" as if that somehow negates the criticism; newsflash, it doesn't. Personally, I'm rapidly approaching the point where I don't care if a movie is ever made, and I suspect I'm not alone. I may even write letters to MGM telling them not to waste their time making one. Maybe I won't be the only one.

Take a look at the thread again with different eyes, and consider that, rather than attempt to dismiss the criticism, you might want to address the fact that people have valid points here, and perhaps we should all work to make things better, by acknowledging the flaws, rather than attempt to excuse them.

It's only my opinion, though. I'm sure you have your own opinion that you're locked into now.

[Flyboy]

You're still avoiding the main issue: We've never done anything like this to allies before, end of story. You can wax poetic about our treatment of enemies who want to use us as cattle, feed on on us, use us as hosts, assimilate our entire world... but when you're facing annihilation, you'll feel a bit differently towards your enemies.

So there's a key difference here that you're trying to smudge. The Langarans weren't our enemies.

And your inability to quote anything underhanded we've done to allies in Atlantis, pretty much speaks volumes that you know we didn't.

Not at all - I'm trying to suggest that Earth hasn't been squeeky clean. However, the situation is different now. As OTHER users have pointed out, Earth is now king of the playground when it comes to galactic affairs, it CAN do what it wants with limited consequences. Such a state of affairs is relatively new. Furthermore, HWC was essentially concerned that Langara were no longer effectively allies, believing them to have made a deal with the Lucian Alliance. Again, new state of affairs that could easily have prompted such rash action. Third, once again - this is the first time that a succesful attack has been made at the heart of US power. The bomb may not have detonated, but considerable destruction was caused. It was a cloaked cargo ship, consider how much damage one conventional aircraft can do to a building, and tell me that the bomb NEEDED to go off to cause significant destruction. In the aftermath of that, it's not surprising rash measures were taken when it was believed that Langara were supporting the LA.

You know, you're partially right... it is my opinion, and Asgard_live's opinion, and the opinion of most of the other people in this thread. Hell, some of the people even arguing it was realistic still think it was a stupid and crappy thing. You're pretty much in the minority, if not outright alone here.

You may want to consider that if the majority are saying something, it might actually have some basis in fact. SGU could use as many fans as it can get, so it might behoove some to honestly consider that the criticism of the majority might actually be valid. Perhaps this is one of the many myriad reasons why the fanbase shrunk and people stopped watching.

Sure, it's only our opinion. It's a cute sentiment to toss at someone "Well.. well... it's only YOUR opinion!" as if that somehow negates the criticism; newsflash, it doesn't. Personally, I'm rapidly approaching the point where I don't care if a movie is ever made, and I suspect I'm not alone. I may even write letters to MGM telling them not to waste their time making one. Maybe I won't be the only one.

Take a look at the thread again with different eyes, and consider that, rather than attempt to dismiss the criticism, you might want to address the fact that people have valid points here, and perhaps we should all work to make things better, by acknowledging the flaws, rather than attempt to excuse them.

It's only my opinion, though. I'm sure you have your own opinion that you're locked into now.

I disagree that MOST believe it to be unrealistic. And actually, I place myself into the camp that you tried to seperate me from. I don't necessarily think it was a GOOD plan, just an understandable one. Don't like SGU? Fine, but declaring it to be unrealistic is frankly laughable. From a real world view, it was entirely realistic, and I would motion that it was also realistic from an in universe view. Don't like it? Fine, but to say that it's the nail in the coffin simply because you want your heroes to be whiter than white is frankly daft. Have a look at the OTHER half of the thread, those such as Cold Fuzz who have been arguing its realism.

I'm not trying to negate your criticism by saying its your opinion, but its one thing to discuss the realism of a plotline, and another to jump to an assertion that it's a 'nail in the coffin'. Whether you like it or not is, for this discussion, irrelevant and off topic. What is on topic is what happened within the Gateverse.

[The_Asgard_live]

I once again disagree. The Wraith were developed, particularly through Todd into quite an interesting race. Todd showed us (for want of a better word) the human side to the Wraith, showing us that they weren't beyond redemption.

Todd repeatedly screwed us over. Yawned when McKay asked for help to save his sister.

I still maintain you're confusing morality with necessity. Just because something is the only logical or practical option does not make it moral. It is NOT moral to forcably change the nature of a sentient society for one's own ends. Take the discussion between Keller and Todd regarding removing the Wraith's needs to feed on humans - it would have considerably consequences of an existential nature for Wraith society. Now granted, if undertaken willingly, that is one thing - but forcably would be immoral - if still practical and necessary.

Stalemated. I have difficulty with Genocide being the preferable to what amounts to rehabilitation/coexistence.

Oh please, he wasn't Nazi like in the slightest. Don't be so black and white. I put it to you that you're viewing this entire argument from a position of absolutes. No such reality exists.

Are we talking about the same episode? O'neill closed the Iris on the leader of a society that engaged in a preemptive ethnic cleaning of their planet. His own population of people, most of whom were in stasis were blondish blue eyed white guys. And he said that Teal'c was "not like them" or some such. How much more evidence that that guy and his people were written to be an allusion to Nazi's do you need? It is black and white.

Trust me, I know what goes on in the real world in terms of military and terrorist threats. Sending bombs through the Stargate, or turning the gate into a bomb is a conventional attack at a front line target. The Pentagon is, though also operational in nature, a symbolic target. The bomb may not have gone off, but it represented the ability of a weaker enemy to hit right at the heart of US power. It is different, for the same reason that 9/11 is different to Pearl Harbour. For those in charge, it is one thing when one of your 'front line' installations comes under attack, but another when it's at the heart of your civilisation.

Again, the Goa'uld routinely tried to take out the entire planet. Not the front line, not a symbolic target, the whole thing. If that didn't inspire the fear and immorality, then neither should a single cargo ship.