modder3434 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So some people are "expendable"...like the poor sods picked up by Thalmor patrols for worshiping their gods and tortured and beheaded? Not to mention the others slated for execution in the Thalmor Embassy basement for who knows what crimes...certainly the Imperial Judiciary system has no say in it. grow a pair. its commendable that you place such a high vaule on everyone's life, but in practice the way the war ended was the best that could have happened given the circumstances. "but innocent people are being killled and kidnapped" , well that stuff happens in war and in police states, i wonder if your this vocal when it comes to real-life examples of this instead of arguing about something that is even real. "the conditions of the treaty where the same as what was originally demanded", so if the empire was so whipped and beaten the Thlamor would have gotten way better terms for themselves, in essence they fought the Dominion to a draw. Now if the Empire where the ones doing the surprise assault they would have won or beaten the thalmor even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) So some people are "expendable"...like the poor sods picked up by Thalmor patrols for worshiping their gods and tortured and beheaded? Not to mention the others slated for execution in the Thalmor Embassy basement for who knows what crimes...certainly the Imperial Judiciary system has no say in it.not saying that at all, just saying that in some cases, Giving up some rights is better than forcing hundreds/thousands of civilians to give up their lives to protect those freedoms, like when the cost of the war is too high to justify the reward of keeping it. Edited June 8, 2012 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) War is a way of resolving issues between nations...issues that cannot be resolved through ordinary diplomatic channels. In fact, Clauswitz called war "diplomacy by other means." War causes death. Peace is not supposed to. Leaving aside, for the moment, the issue of whether the Empire caved when signing the WGC or whether the AD would have continued belligerence if the Empire had insisted on a neutral ceasefire treaty, people are dying (after being horribly tortured) at the hands of a hostile foreign power under the terms of a peace treaty, while their government looks the other way. Read that sentence again. In point of fact those people are being sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Any government that allows the killing of innocents has lost all claim to humanity. And this has been going on for 30 years. In a society such as Skyrim's 30 years is literally a lifetime. Everyone who fought the AD is going to be dead. Every one who remembers what not having to fear the knock in the middle of the night will be dead. If the Empire had actually lost, I doubt the terms of surrender could have been any more harsh... I've been in harm's way. I have seen the elephant. Maybe someone needs to grow a pair but, personally, I wouldn't want anyone who thinks that kind of situation is acceptable anywhere near me in a fight. I wouldn't want to turn my back on them. I'll take Ulfric...for all his flaws. Edited June 8, 2012 by MacSuibhne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacSuibhne Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 not saying that at all, just saying that in some cases, Giving up some rights is better than forcing hundreds/thousands of civilians to give up their lives to protect those freedoms, like when the cost of the war is too high to justify the reward of keeping it. People get rabidly sanctimonious when it comes to Ulfric betraying his honour. But it strikes me as hypocritical to not feel a sense of deep, deep, even unbearable unease with writing off the lives of innocent people to justify a dishonourable peace. It's bookkeeping of the most tawdry and shameful kind. And ultimately self-serving. If you can give up some rights, you will give up others... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordanLoL Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 So some people are "expendable"...like the poor sods picked up by Thalmor patrols for worshiping their gods and tortured and beheaded? Not to mention the others slated for execution in the Thalmor Embassy basement for who knows what crimes...certainly the Imperial Judiciary system has no say in it.not saying that at all, just saying that in some cases, Giving up some rights is better than forcing hundreds/thousands of civilians to give up their lives to protect those freedoms, like when the cost of the war is too high to justify the reward of keeping it. That may be the Imperial way, but not the Nord way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modder3434 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 War is a way of resolving issues between nations...issues that cannot be resolved through ordinary diplomatic channels. In fact, Clauswitz called war "diplomacy by other means." War causes death. Peace is not supposed to. Leaving aside, for the moment, the issue of whether the Empire caved when signing the WGC or whether the AD would have continued belligerence if the Empire had insisted on a neutral ceasefire treaty, people are dying (after being horribly tortured) at the hands of a hostile foreign power under the terms of a peace treaty, while their government looks the other way. Read that sentence again. In point of fact those people are being sacrificed on the altar of appeasement. Any government that allows the killing of innocents has lost all claim to humanity. And this has been going on for 30 years. In a society such as Skyrim's 30 years is literally a lifetime. Everyone who fought the AD is going to be dead. Every one who remembers what not having to fear the knock in the middle of the night will be dead. If the Empire had actually lost, I doubt the terms of surrender could have been any more harsh... I've been in harm's way. I have seen the elephant. Maybe someone needs to grow a pair but, personally, I wouldn't want anyone who thinks that kind of situation is acceptable anywhere near me in a fight. I wouldn't want to turn my back on them. I'll take Ulfric...for all his flaws. i never said i liked it or agree with it, but i am arguing the point of what is better in the long run. i despise thinking of people dieing needlessly and without reason, however its something I've come to accept that happens and i try to make the best possible solution out of it.. Now i will agree that we could use a new emperor (maybe the dragaonborn or some other qualifies guy). If this was reality i like to think i'd be doing a lot to help hasten the defeat of the thalmor and not sit ideally by. on a side note i didn't mean to give offense in any of my previous posts, i just like to argue my opinion, and debate with people who have different opinions then i do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) ........."the conditions of the treaty where the same as what was originally demanded", so if the empire was so whipped and beaten the Thlamor would have gotten way better terms for themselves, in essence they fought the Dominion to a draw. Now if the Empire where the ones doing the surprise assault they would have won or beaten the thalmor even worse. This is the heart of the problem - right here. If they didn't have the stomach for the fight and actually believed in their cause just accept the original demands, throw your member nations under the bus and save 10's of thousands of lives so they can keep wearing their pretty royal garb. INSTEAD, they wage a fight they aren't committed to, lose 10's of thousands of lives, THEN sell their member nations short. THAT is a complete and utter waste of life and resources for no cause whatsoever. The Emperor should be put to the block for that. Added: I wouldn't be surprised one bit if that is the motivation for the DB contract on the Emperor. Edited June 8, 2012 by fraquar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 i still say mede did what he thought was right. Do i agree with it? no, it is wrong to sign freedoms away, but it is not my place to decide what the leaders can/can't do when they are backed into a corner after a brutal war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fraquar Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Backed into a corner? Shouldn't he have had leverage instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted4666244User Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 both sides were badly beaten from the war, i do not think either side had the military power to make anymore demands, the emperor had little strength and could not make any demands. That is the WGC, the result of a war that ended with little strength left to make any demands, so the AD stuck to the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts