Guest Ktrek Posted March 4, 2004 I rated this episode a 10 because I really liked it BUT as my wife and I got talking about the show I got thinking about what kind of captain is Archer? What kind of captain would exist in our military if he could not send one of his own men out to die? The most important member of the crew is the captain because he is the one binding central authority. It might have seemed like a heroic thing to do to sacrifice yourself instead of a crewman under you, but a captain must learn to be able to give orders and live with himself regardless of the results. I don't remember the episode title but on TNG there was an episode where Picard had to make the decision to sacrifice one of his crewmen knowing she would never survive. If you're dead you never have to deal with the consequences of your actions and the ramifications they may have. Unless you believe in God as I do of course! Another little thing that bugged me was that Archer seems so intent on destroying the Xindi weapon that negotiating never seems to have occured to him. If he had succeeded in his mission and destroyed the Xindi weapon and destroyed himself and the Xindi would Archer(us humans) be any better than the Xindi who are set on destroying us before we destroy them? Hmmm Ahh...the morality play! Ktrek Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Admiral Kirk 1 Posted March 4, 2004 You make a compelling argument and I thought the same thing while Iwatched the show tonight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Captain Jean-Luc Picard 1 Posted March 4, 2004 After Archer condemed so many to death, I was pleased to see that he wasn't willing to send anyone else to their death. I respect a man who's willing to do the work himself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ozymandous 0 Posted March 4, 2004 After Archer condemed so many to death, I was pleased to see that he wasn't willing to send anyone else to their death. I respect a man who's willing to do the work himself. Condemned so many to death? What, the half a dozen or so enemy fighters they had to deal with? Umm, in case you msised it this is a war, at least from the aspect of the Xindi, if for no one else. The Xindi didn't seem to care about condemning 7 million people to death when they attacked Earth, so why should it have bothered Archer to destroy a military LP/OP when it meant his position wouild remain secure a little longer? I agree that Archer is a wimp in that he didn't tell someone else to do the mission, but then again, he was told by Daniels that he was the one who had to convince the Xindi, so maybe he planned to talk to them anyway once he got the bomb in place. Who knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stelfan 0 Posted March 4, 2004 It's pretty strange that Archer didn't seem to listen at all to what Daniels was saying.. I mean, Archer must know that Daniels can hardly be wrong, he already knows how it is supposed to turn out. Then again, there is a possibility that Archer was supposed to try and blow up the weapon and then get caught.. I guess you could discuss this forever Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpocksBrain 0 Posted March 4, 2004 (edited) Why would daniels interfere if the future was set and the federation is going to win that battle against the sphere builders? It seems like there was no purpose for him to show Archer the future if things were already going to work out. All he could possibly do is ruin everything. About Archer, I think he is my least favorite of all starship captains, maybe it's because Scott Backula is a lousey actor, but it seems like he is all ways making bad decisions. Edited March 4, 2004 by Spock'sBrain Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stelfan 0 Posted March 4, 2004 I think it's logical that Daniels interfered since there wasn't even supposed to be a war against the Xindi, Archer might need some help to set everything right again. The federation wouldn't even be there if earth was destroyed or if Archer died, and that way the sphere builders win without even having to fight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuraksSoul 0 Posted March 4, 2004 (edited) Hmm...I thought Star Fleet wasn't really a true "military" organization during Archer's time period? Isn't that why we have MACOs onboard?? Thus, I don't think Archer is entitled to send any of his people to death while under his command. Star Fleet isn't civilian, but the Enterprise was not made to be a warship. Of course, given the current situation with the Xindi...I agree that Archer needs to "buff up." But as one of the above posters mentioned...Daniels did say that Archer was the only one who could correct the situation. And he sure won't be as effective from the bridge as he would be in person. Edited March 4, 2004 by SuraksSoul Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
