What will be Dany’s justification for invading Westeros?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Which is the reason that has been given by pretty much every Dany fan on this thread but since that OP doesn't agree with it, he thinks that nobody has done any thinking on the subject and therefore its wrong.

It is why this thread was pointless from the start.

I wouldn't discard the fact that she might later believe that the Dothrakis and the slaves she freed could have a better live in Westeros, something I agree with. It's what Nymeria did, right? What's wrong with Dany bringing people who would probably be better by having one fertile place where to stablish instead of roaming around foraging and pillaging?

[Steve Stark]

the thread is not the problem , the problem is the haters and the worshipers who only come here to pick a fight.

Very true.

I only come to these threads to see if I can learn something new, and because honestly, no one can say anything that will upset me about any character. When it comes to ASOIAF, the only person that can truly upset me is George. The rest is speculation. All my posts, all my theories, and everyone else's...all conjecture. Why get so upset about things other people *think*?

Let's just say I hated Stannis (I don't, for the record), and someone else worshiped him. I love that, because now we can have friendly banter...unless of course, me not liking Stannis hurts that person's feelings. But how lame is that? What does my opinion matter? What if I hate your sports team? Can't we just be friendly rivals and I don't know, bet 10 dragons on our opposing teams rather than take forum posts to heart?

I've probably spent too much time on this as it is, but I don't see the point in getting worked up or on trying to "win" a debate here. Conjecture. Conjecture. Conjecture. The only time we will truly have answers will be when the writing is on the page, or if George let's loose some secrets. Until then, all those calling names, fighting tooth and nail over favorite characters and how we each perceived them upon reading the books, is utterly pointless.

In short, have fun, and fuck it. It ain't that big of a deal if everyone and their mother disagrees with you. I think Dany and Jon will end up together, and then Dany will cheat on Jon with Tormund due to his enticing member. Oh...you don't agree? Good for you. Fuck off. (And if you couldn't tell, that is all in jest).

[Ser Creighton]

To take a break from the rampant negativity that permeates this thread, I would like to thank you for linking to this essay. It was a great read and it made a lot more sense than the overrated Blot series. This essay alligns with what in my opinion is the right way to interpret the text. I also feel that most of the essay is highly relevant to the discussion at hand. I would recommend reading it to everyone.

Dany's crusade is neither imperialistic or colonialistic, it is a rebles revolution it's like saying the revolutionady in the frech revolution were imperialistic. She is not trying to expand the power of a country, it is a revolution to free slaves. It's also not true that it has failed as it is not over yet is it, that is an application of a false attribute and we know for a fact it is not over. Thousands of lives would of been saved had she not what? If I may, in Astapor the Masters turned out some 2000 Unsullied a year. Best guess, as they state they will have two thousand more Unsullied next year.

Only one and three Unsullied survive training, and of those that do survive a baby will be killed. That's 6000 deaths in a year just on training. How were all these children found, well most of them come from raids. The world book indicates there is a town similar to the Ivory coast where slaves are taken before being shipped, the pattern is very similar to the Atlantic slave trade.

http://www.africanholocaust.net/html_ah/holocaustspecial.htm

Now given this has been going on for thousands of years, the numbers are in the millions, so how many lives is she actually attempting to save? This is not just in the moment this is a generational problem, both the past and the future have to be considered. Dany very clearly states why she stops. Between Meereen and the west is a death march. She is tired, her people are tired, they need time to rest, grow and learn, and the same is applied to the Dragons.

Now I just did the unsullied, but if you take all the slaves, all the raids, and all the abuses past, present and future, then you get an idea of what has happened and how devistating the slave trade is. I do not mind that she stopped, everyone has to stop at some point even in war, my problem is she became to embbeded with the slavers. Game them to many considerations. The idea that being more machiavellian somehow saves lives is nonsense, Hitler was considered a machiavellian, so was Napoleon. There are often people in history considered Machiavellian and in the case of Napoleon it is sometimes considered his downfall.

As for history, winners write the history and the war is not over yet. We also don't have a death toll, so again that would be a false attribute. I can simply say for the 8000 Unsullied in the plaza and the 2000 coming up next year you have 30,000 death just to train them. That does not even include how they got them and those numbers do come from the books. If it even comes close to mirroring the Atlantic slave trade, it has been a multi generational world wide holocaust that even stretches to Westeros and beyond as we know slavers take Wildlings. Which may partly explain the very, very small Wildling population.

Now I tend to give Dany some pretty big wiggle room when dealing with the slavers, but that is because of what she is dealing with, and I would think most people would understand that. Using black and white thinking just does not work, is it right or wrong? There is a lot of grey area involved here, you are not dealing with the people of Naathi here, these are some serious fucking monsters. My major concern for Dany and Jon is and will be what Nietzsche said, "Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you." I think Martin played with that idea, but in 71 Dance many of my concerns for Dany are allievated. Now I look at that quote and I can't help but also think of the Others and how not only Jon but many people in Westeros will probably be driven to some very tough choices at some point. Who do you let starve? She would we eat Billy? Should I sacrifice these people to bait them into a trap, should I abandon these people? Should I send people on a suicide misson because it is morally right but they will all die? Morality and practicality often come into conflict in the books.

[Lord of the Dreadfort]

Look, I dislike Dany. I can't say I particularly want her to end up winning in Westeros. But she's not being set up to be a villain, even if I did want that to be the case. She's clearly meant to be a sympathetic but grey character. She may end up on the IT, or married to our favourite characters, and we just have to accept it. I personally hate the idea of her and Jon falling in love and marrying, but accept it is a possibility.

I will say though that I am always wary of criticising Dany, because her antagonists are sooooooo evil that I run the risk of being accused of being a slaver sympathiser or something.

but that's the thing. People can't say anything bad about Daenerys, if they do, they take the risk of being called slaver sympathiser by the Dany's worshipers.

[foreign675]

Very true.

I only come to these threads to see if I can learn something new, and because honestly, no one can say anything that will upset me about any character. When it comes to ASOIAF, the only person that can truly upset me is George. The rest is speculation. All my posts, all my theories, and everyone else's...all conjecture. Why get so upset about things other people *think*?

Let's just say I hated Stannis (I don't, for the record), and someone else worshiped him. I love that, because now we can have friendly banter...unless of course, me not liking Stannis hurts that person's feelings. But how lame is that? What does my opinion matter? What if I hate your sports team? Can't we just be friendly rivals and I don't know, bet 10 dragons on our opposing teams rather than take forum posts to heart?

I've probably spent too much time on this as it is, but I don't see the point in getting worked up or on trying to "win" a debate here. Conjecture. Conjecture. Conjecture. The only time we will truly have answers will be when the writing is on the page, or if George let's loose some secrets. Until then, all those calling names, fighting tooth and nail over favorite characters and how we each perceived them upon reading the books, is utterly pointless.

In short, have fun, and fuck it. It ain't that big of a deal if everyone and their mother disagrees with you. I think Dany and Jon will end up together, and then Dany will cheat on Jon with Tormund due to his enticing member. Oh...you don't agree? Good for you. Fuck off. (And if you couldn't tell, that is all in jest).

No, we can't.

*hires a faceless man to dispose of Steve Stark*

[Primalsplit]

You are all wrong here. Please stop, because you are ruining the thread.

Dany will go to Westeros to help White Walkers to invade Westeros. Because she is that horrible of a person.

Didn't cross your mind before huh?

[Ser Creighton]

You can refer to this thread to see why your so-called Jon criticism utterly fails.

Know it actually doesn't that thread is based on Opinion and mine is based on 20 years of practical combat experience and military service. When they send Bumps to War college let me know, making excuses for Jon does not make Jon right, why do you think the author stabbed him? As Martin always says there has to be reason, it has to make sense.

[JonCon's Red Beard]

then why do you even bother to comment in this kind of thread? the thread is not the problem , the problem is the haters and the worshipers who only come here to pick a fight.

The problem is calling people who like a character a "worshipper".

This is a board for debate. You present a theory and we either agree with supported argument or we refute it with, also, supported argument. If you're always going to call "worshipper" someone who disagrees with you then the debate is already over. You know what is like? It's when I had an argument with a person in which I called her out for her bullshit. As this person was gay, she called me... yeah, "homophobic".

Because, one thing is to present a theory or an argument and wait for others to discuss it and a different one is to expect you are completely right and everybody is going to agree with you, specially if such argument is nothing but an opinion, which is what this thread is. The context and subject of the OP is very much "do you agree with me that Dany have selfish reasons to return to Westeros and she will make a mess?". The answers are, obviously, rebuttals to those claims. Why wouldn't they? Not everybody reads Dany in the same way OP does. Those who see her as a good character disagree.

So, maybe, this thread should have had a warning: "this is a thread in which we examine Dany negatively, and we will see her under that light". In that way, we should have known that discuss Dany as something positive was, from the beginning, out of the question and we wouldn't have "ruined" the thread.

[LmL]

Complaining that other characters don't receive the same criticism is simply blame shifting. Every character receives scrutiny, and the main characters more so. Jon and Eddard and everyone else has their motivations questioned. Complaining about scrutiny on Dany by talking about other characters is again, an emotional reaction defending someone's honor, not a rational analysis. Why does anyone care if others pick apart or criticize a character? What's the harm? George has written many different complex characters which people of various viewpoints may identify with or not based on their own worldview. This is all fine. People who get super worked up because their favorite character is being criticized are defending their "honor," not having a rational debate. And that's what we've seen here.

Letting the wildlings (native to Westeros) south of the wall is akin to invading Westeros with Dothraki and Sellswords? Really? This is the kind of absurd reasoning which makes it clear the only goal is to deflect criticism of Dany. Just to name one ridiculous argument on this thread.

And no, slavers bay wasn't like the French Revolution, at all. If the slaves themselves had risen up - that would have been like the French Revolution. Dany was an external force, and she didn't really ask the slaves before she started overthrowing the power structures in Yunkai, Astapor, or Meereen. She did it for her own ends - to gain the unsullied for free.

Anyway. Think I've had enough of this, gonna go back to talking about ASOAIF on threads which aren't taken over by trolls.

[foreign675]

You are all wrong here. Please stop, because you are ruining the thread.

Dany will go to Westeros to help White Walkers to invade Westeros. Because she is that horrible of a person.

Didn't cross your mind before huh?

No, she is SO horrible that the White Walkers will join the armies of free men making a piece-alliance lasting thousands of years with the only purpose of killing the Daemon Daenerys.

[Kyoshi]

but that's the thing. People can't say anything bad about Daenerys, if they do, they take the risk of being called slaver sympathiser by the Dany's worshipers.

Dear gods I wish you would stop calling us names. Seriously. What the fuck.

[Mithras]

Dear gods I wish you would stop calling us names. Seriously. What the fuck.

Because you already have names?

Your sig

I only got a signature to declare my love and loyalty for Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen - the most underrated and misunderstood fictional character I've ever encountered. You, yes you, I know you're judging me...call me a fanboy if you will. Just know that I don't care. #TeamKhaleesi! #TeamDragonUnit

[Steve Stark]

No, we can't.

*hires a faceless man to dispose of Steve Stark*

Har!

What if I told you...I am a Faceless Man?

[JonCon's Red Beard]

Complaining that other characters don't receive the same criticism is simply blame shifting. Every character receives scrutiny, and the main characters more so. Jon and Eddard and everyone else has their motivations questioned. Complaining about scrutiny on Dany by talking about other characters is again, an emotional reaction defending someone's honor, not a rational analysis. Why does anyone care if others pick apart or criticize a character? What's the harm? George has written many different complex characters which people of various viewpoints may identify with or not based on their own worldview. This is all fine. People who get super worked up because their favorite character is being criticized are defending their "honor," not having a rational debate. And that's what we've see here.

Letting the wildlings (native to Westeros) south of the wall is akin to invading Westeros with Dothraki and Sellswords? Really? This is the kind if absurd reasoning which makes it clear the only goal is to deflect criticism of Dany. Just to name one ridiculous argument on this thread.

Anyway. Think I've had enough of this, gonna go back to talking about ASOAIF on threads which aren't taken over by trolls.

I suppose you missed the "Dany is wrong on letting her emotions taking control, but Jon being mad at Thorne for insulting Ned completely justifies him trying to kill him" discussions. Or "Jon did right on taking hostages from the wildlings because there was no other choice but Ned was completely wrong on taking Theon" or, my favourite, "AA will be good if he's Jon, but Dany turns out to be AA, then AA is actually a figure of chaos and destruction". That last one was LITERALLY said in a discussion*.

So, please, don't try to tell us those who like Dany that she's treated in the same way other characters are because it is not true. While mostly people is very neutral about her, those who don't like her are VERY NOISY in their dislike.

Also, no one is saying that those who don't like her defend slavery. What we say is that there is a group that says Dany should have remained indifferent and simply passed by and do nothing because her actions have caused problems. With that in mind, many societies in our world would still be slaved. The premise of their criticism is that Dany has caused a mess. Well, Dany hasn't caused the mess. What caused the mess was the change of regime, something that IT WAS DEFINITELY going to cause problems, as the slavers weren't so easily going to say "ah, ok. Change our lives, we'll adapt". Why would they? Of course they're warring back. because they can. The other option many offer is that she should have let things how she found them, hence, keep slavery continue. I can see the outrage if that had happened: "she had dragons and she did nothing? She would rather go to a place she never was before instead of staying and making a change?!".

*a runner-up was "how do we know that those crucified children weren't actually children who disobeyed the slavers and were being punished?".

[WSmith84]

Genuine question here: do people think that Robert's Rebellion was unjustified? Or is it just the removal of the Targaryen dynasty part that people disagree with?

[Steve Stark]

Genuine question here: do people think that Robert's Rebellion was unjustified? Or is it just the removal of the Targaryen dynasty part that people disagree with?

That's a tough question to answer, because there are a lot of opinions on it and it depends where you stand on the matter.

The Mad King needed to be removed, sure. Dude was batshit crazy and left things in a state of chaos. Of course the men that had the power to remove him also had the power to take the throne for themselves (which men are wont to do), just as the dragons had given the Targs the ability to take the throne/Westeros long before then. Were they justified?

The part that was unjustified was killing the offspring of the Targs, in my opinion. Among a few other things which I'm sure were unnecessary. But that's the kind of thing that happened to prevent one's reign from being questioned and to prevent uprisings. Although, I'm of a mind that if I were in Robert Baratheon's place, or someone like him, I would refuse to allow the bashing of children's heads against the wall.

Sorry, prob doesn't answer your question. I'm sure others have a different answer.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Genuine question here: do people think that Robert's Rebellion was unjustified? Or is it just the removal of the Targaryen dynasty part that people disagree with?

I'm not authorized to speak for the People. As for me, it's negative to both questions. Why?

[Kyoshi]

Because you already have names?

Your sig

I only got a signature to declare my love and loyalty for Daenerys Stormborn Targaryen - the most underrated and misunderstood fictional character I've ever encountered. You, yes you, I know you're judging me...call me a fanboy if you will. Just know that I don't care. #TeamKhaleesi! #TeamDragonUnit

You honestly don't get it, do you? I want to be surprised. Honestly, I do, I find that I'm not.

[Steve Stark]

Oh, and for the record, I know Robert didn't approve of them bashing kid's heads against the wall. That was a Mountain That Rides thing, and maybe a Lannister thing. But still. He did go on to trying to murder Dany, who in my eyes, was still a child. So he's not perfect, by any means. Still...I don't know if he'd have approved of child head bashing. I could be wrong...

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Oh, and for the record, I know Robert didn't approve of them bashing kid's heads against the wall. That was a Mountain That Rides thing, and maybe a Lannister thing. But still. He did go on to trying to murder Dany, who in my eyes, was still a child. So he's not perfect, by any means. Still...I don't know if he'd have approved of child head bashing. I could be wrong...

But Robert did approve, after the fact. His approval almost cost him Ned's friendship.