This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

So I finally did Purge of Dalaran as Alliance. (Spoilers, I guess?)

#61ElaeusPosted 2/8/2013 2:10:07 PM
Actually it is, or at least- it's redundant to mention. Dumb was not the right word neither the context.

If you have to crown someone, then in my opinion it should be Jaina as we at least been prepared for Garrosh and went all "wft blizz" about the changes in character while Jaina just came out of nowhere after that book was released. Shame honestly, because Garrosh had a great potential to be a well-written character, and because Jaina was actually an alright character herself and Blizzard went to screw both.
---
'I am always surprised at how you, a Czech, have better grammar, spelling, and style than many native born speakers in the U.S.' -Ruvan22
#62game freakozoidPosted 2/8/2013 2:48:28 PM
I feel Jaina has a good reason to drop neutrality atleast against Garrosh seeing as how thanks to them her entire city and most of her most trusted friends were blown to smithereens.
#63inferiorweaselPosted 2/8/2013 3:30:37 PM
CM101Play posted...
Wyrmwarrior5 posted...
c0sa n0stra posted...
I guess Garrosh shouldn't have bombed the city of one of the most anti-war Alliance leaders huh? Jaina may have gone a little overboard, but the rogue Sunreavers constructed the bomb that took out Theramore and then abused the Kirin Tor's neutrality to steal the Divine Bell from Darnassus to unleash another massacre of Alliance CIVILIANS, Varian would never have tried to use that thing.


Nobody is denying that Garrosh is a douchenozzle. But again the thing is, the entire group of Sunreavers should not be taking the blame. Jaina overreacted entirely, and ended up causing a place that was once a symbol of peace into a war zone, and tons of innocents were killed or imprisoned. What happened with Theramore was terrible, and the few behind stuff like that SHOULD be punished, but Jaina didn't go "we need to take out those responsible", it was "**** it kick them all out, kill everyone who might show the smallest resistance."

Also, it's funny that you should mention Varian when he is like "dude Jaina wtf"


So when we nuked Japan and killed, what, thousands of innocents, you thought that was the wrong thing to do? Because if we didn't do it then more people would've died over all. To end a war you have to make the opposition give up, and they won't do that if you're not making every single one of them responsible.


The war was already over, Japan couldn't keep fighting back. The bombs were overkill. Historical retrospect and documentation attained by the world leaders have shown this. The nukes were dropped as a test, nothing more. If you think otherwise I don't think you know the real geo-political situation of the world in that era.
---
Live and Learn / Forgiveness is Divine.
(Read those. If you still feel the same way.... Well, you are redcount. - Vyyk)
#64AmakusaPosted 2/8/2013 3:34:31 PM
inferiorweasel posted...
The war was already over, Japan couldn't keep fighting back. The bombs were overkill. Historical retrospect and documentation attained by the world leaders have shown this.


You conveniently left out the part where Japan didn't formally surrender until after the bombs dropped.
---
I will rule the world, and find that truly good cup of coffee.
#65Sir WillPosted 2/8/2013 4:01:52 PM
Amakusa posted...
inferiorweasel posted...
The war was already over, Japan couldn't keep fighting back. The bombs were overkill. Historical retrospect and documentation attained by the world leaders have shown this.


You conveniently left out the part where Japan didn't formally surrender until after the bombs dropped.


So? That doesn't mean they wouldn't have. And they definately would have after the first, the US just wanted them to hurry it up and drop any conditions that were mostly to save face anyway. All for US pride.
---
River Song: Well, I was off to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I thought 'Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish, I think i'll kill the Fuhrer'
#66AmakusaPosted 2/8/2013 4:11:36 PM(edited)
Sir Will posted...
So? That doesn't mean they wouldn't have.


If you go by hindsight, maybe, but you weren't there, and you don't know that for sure.

As for pride, you act like the Japanese didn't have any.
---
I will rule the world, and find that truly good cup of coffee.
#67Abyssmal FiendPosted 2/8/2013 4:41:17 PM
The atomic bombings of Japan always brings out the people who don't know the first thing about WWII. It's almost impressive, really. Statistically, you're bound to have civil and informed discussions on the matter. In practice, however, you see everything but.

Here's the short version: the bombs were nothing new. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the only cities leveled in the war. They weren't the only cities leveled by strategic bombing fleets. They weren't even the biggest cities -- both of them were on the small size as contemporary cities went. Hell, those two bombings weren't even the most costly in terms of lives lost. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than either nuke.

The bombs, morally, represented nothing new. There was and is no moral dilemma here. You're still bombing a city full of civilians and killing tens of thousands of people in a single day. If you're going to sit there and object to the atomic bombings but not every other strategic bombardment mission (from London to Dresden), then you're being disingenuous. If you're going to object to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but not Tokyo, your problem isn't the fact that thousands of people were killed en masse -- your problem is that you don't like how they were killed.

Now climb down off your respective high horses and get back on topic.
---
"Erst waegen, dann wagen." - Helmuth von Moltke the Elder
#68angrywalrus13Posted 2/8/2013 5:07:44 PM
Varian is my brothymes.
---
Thomx
like tommicks
#69Ruvan22Posted 2/8/2013 6:50:19 PM
angrywalrus13 posted...
Varian is my brothymes.


Does that make him a browalrus?
#70game freakozoidPosted 2/8/2013 11:56:41 PM
Abyssmal Fiend posted...
The atomic bombings of Japan always brings out the people who don't know the first thing about WWII. It's almost impressive, really. Statistically, you're bound to have civil and informed discussions on the matter. In practice, however, you see everything but.

Here's the short version: the bombs were nothing new. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the only cities leveled in the war. They weren't the only cities leveled by strategic bombing fleets. They weren't even the biggest cities -- both of them were on the small size as contemporary cities went. Hell, those two bombings weren't even the most costly in terms of lives lost. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than either nuke.

The bombs, morally, represented nothing new. There was and is no moral dilemma here. You're still bombing a city full of civilians and killing tens of thousands of people in a single day. If you're going to sit there and object to the atomic bombings but not every other strategic bombardment mission (from London to Dresden), then you're being disingenuous. If you're going to object to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but not Tokyo, your problem isn't the fact that thousands of people were killed en masse -- your problem is that you don't like how they were killed.

Now climb down off your respective high horses and get back on topic.



Oh look guys, we have a poster that thinks that just because only the atomic bombs are mentioned that everyone who has talked about them and criticized them is all of a sudden huge fans of all the other bombings! And we shouldn't even get into the whole fact that just because something isn't the worst tragedy of the war, doesn't make it all of a sudden all right to commit when it was unnecessary to commit.

Basically, to sum it up, you post didn't really have anything to do with anything in the actual conversation that has been had. If you want to talk about the other bombings during the war, then do that. But if you are going to b**** about people staying on topic, then maybe you shouldn't derail the topic any further.


Oh, and maybe you should educate yourself in the future as all bombings that happened during the world war all have controversies associated with them to whether it was justified to do so.