Jump to content

What will be Dany’s justification for invading Westeros?


Mithras

Recommended Posts

Her justifications for invasion:


(1) Fire and Blood!


(2) Dragon's plant no trees.


(3) Tormund is rumored to be even bigger than Daario


(4) To go west, you must go west.


(5) She must destroy the world, before she can have a baby.


(7) Drogon is hungry, and Essos is running out of maidens.



and last but not least



(8) Tommen is an abomination born of incest.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Hmmm...well then maybe he was a dickhead after all. I still don't like Cersei though. :)

Did he really approve? Man...who approves of that kind of behavior? I'm all for killing the enemy. But kids? No wonder Joffrey was messed up in the head and always hurting people. I blame his dad and his bitch of a mother. (if you're a Cersei fan, sorry. Does it help that I think she's hot, at least?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites





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.





You know, it would be nice if you had at least checked the essay out. If you had done so, you would have known that the author actually rallies against an imperialistic reading of Daenerys arc. In his essay, the author actually describes parrallels between Daenerys campaign and the American Civil War and Reconstruction era.



He starts of by creating a clear overview of the sheer cost of slavery in human misery. His math is much less sloppy than yours by the way, quoting from the essay: 'in the four hundred years or so that Astapor has been in the business of producing Unsullied, two and a half million human beings have been murdered, not counting any deaths on the battlefield'. After that, he starts analyzing Daenerys' campaign to understand why exactly it went haywire.



Another important thing you failed to notice in your eagerness to play Captain Obvious is the fact that the author is analyzing Daenerys campaign up to the moment he has textual information. Since he isn't GRRM, that's up until the end of ADWD and at that particular moment, her campaign against slavery clearly lies in shambles. The author does not make any predictions about the future, but really, even a moron could guess that the slavers aren't coming out of this one on top.



His major complaint (simplifying it here just for you) is that she in the end wasn't ruthless enough in culling the slavers castes and redistributing the wealth in Slavers bay (leaving the slavers powerbase in tact). Dany's eagerness to come to a peaceful solution was thus her major weakness. This was exploited by the slaver caste and used to create the mess that the area is currently in.



So, the next time try to actually use your reading comprehension skills. That should always be the first step. You know before you go about writing a lengthy post totally besides the point and drag poor Nietsche into the fray. It's hard enough to cope with the flimsy "arguments" presented by Dany haters, I expect better of those that support her.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. To bring justice.

2. To save the Realm from the Others.

3. To claim her birthright and restore her dynasty.

4. Proclaiming that she is the best ruler out there and Westeros needs her.

5. Might makes right.

Let us see:

1. So far, her CV looks like vomit considering her application of justice in SB.

2. So far, she knows nothing about the Others.

3. fAegon already beat her into that. And his claim is superior to hers, unless she can find proofs to convince people that he is false.

4. Again, her CV. Vomit.

5. There goes the moral upper hand.

What does Jon's CV have on it, excrement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Honestly? It just never really occured to me that people would side against the rebellion in this instance. I know Robert wasn't a good man, but I just can't not see the Rebellion as just, or at least the lesser of two evils. Basically I can somewhat understand the latter, just not really the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

It seems to me that there are SOME that would argue that Dany had an unconditional right to invade Westeros under any and all circumstances, without qualification or condition, because the removal of the Targaryens was, without question, an illegitimate act.

I personally take the view, that given the likely conditions in Westeros, her intended invasion will probably be less problematic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that there are SOME that would argue that Dany had an unconditional right to invade Westeros under any and all circumstances, without qualification or condition.

I personally take the view, that given the likely conditions in Westeros, her intended invasion will probably be less problematic.

A question I am interested in, but will probably never be answered, is if Robert's succession had gone smoothly i.e. no Wot5K and such, would Dany still be poised to invade (assuming she followed the same path)? I can maybe get aboard her invading Westeros as it is, but it would be very hard to cheer for her to invade a unified, peaceful Westeros.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question I am interested in, but will probably never be answered, is if Robert's succession had gone smoothly i.e. no Wot5K and such, would Dany still be poised to invade (assuming she followed the same path)? I can maybe get aboard her invading Westeros as it is, but it would be very hard to cheer for her to invade a unified, peaceful Westeros.

I agree with this, generally. But, SOME would argue that even under these circumstances Dany had a "right" to invade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is relevant because as the readers, we know that the Targaryens are not overthrown unjustly. Robert’s Rebellion was completely justified and legal. So, if Dany rejects the chances to learn the truth time and again while using the bolded as her justification, she deserves all the bashing about it.

I disagree with your premise. As the reader, while I think that Robert had a right to defend his life, he did not have any inherent right to put himself as King. I don't accept that moral rationale. Even if he had the right to overthrow Aerys, perhaps the "moral" choice would be to have put Viserys in power (Viserys committed no crime and would be "next in line" as far as anyone knew at the time).

I try not to live in world of "black and white" where every moral dilemma has a clear answer (some do, many do not). So as I don't accept your premise that it is 100% clear that Robert had a right to overthrow the entire Targ dynasty and put himself in place as king -- and certainly every reader is free to make this choice for himself or herself -- I don't think it will be universally accepted that Dany's rationale is completely unsupportable. And with Robert dead -- and multiple potential claimants vying for the throne -- Dany's claim becomes even more defensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the purpose is to question the premise that someone in Dany's position has a right to invade her former homeland? How about, to debate the ethics of war? There are lots of reasons. The conquering hero is a standard fantasy trope - I think George means for us to question it, and that's what is happening. You perceive it as a personal attack because you identify with Dany - but that's an emotional reaction. This is a thread to suggest Dany's justifications don't hold up to scrutiny. That's totally legitimate Ice and fire analysis. Just because someone concludes her justifications are baseless doesn't indicate any kind of bias - it's simply a conclusion based on evidence and opinion.

The way some people are defending Dany is essentially like defending the honor of their best friend - it's totally irrational, based on loyalty, not facts or reasoning.

We can always debate ethics and war but as the author often suggests keep it in the context of the books. I have heard of the 163 stated as a war crime but in the context of the books that does not exist. There is no international humanitarian law, if those are applied then the slavers have commited murder, mitreated prisoners to the extreme, deported civilians from there country, slavery and slave labor, murdering and mistreating prisoners of war, forced people to serve in there armies, no trials, and pretty much every crime against humanity. Yunkai commited an act of perfidy. But we don't have the Hague conventions, or the Nuremberg trial and you would asking for an astronomical leap of laws and customs for the context in which the story is told. Common convention does exist for the execution of slavery even in Martins world. Martin has also stated more than once he is not writing an allegory so it would seem application of modern concepts also does not apply. Once you ignore the context the story is given in you begin to change the story.

I have no problem with anyone who is upset by the 163 slavers and the manner in which they were executed. It is emoptionally based, I do not suffer from this dilemma as I take the slavers as the author has presented them, they are pretty much monsters. I also understand why he chose them, it's not a very grey choice and he probably did that for a reason. Now this of course is fiction, and we know Martin is a Pulp fiction fan. So at some point you have to aknowledge they are are action, and emotional beats. He did not give you all this insight into the slavers for nothing. You watch Django you are not going what is Django doing to the slavers, you watch Inglourious bastards and you are not going what is Brad Pitt doing to those poor Nazi's? There is an entertainment factor on hand here, it's not real. There are things being acted out that fantastical. We didn't baby killing, puppy killing and the crucifiction of 163 children because he is asking the readers to have feels for the slavers. He does not really address the 163 after the fact. For me the question becomes what I stated about Nietzche in a previous post, I became more concerned for Dany and her choices. Not going to lie there is not much that will make me feel for the slave masters. If Oberyn executed the Mountain in this manner I would not feel for the Mountain either. All I stand by is that it be kept in the context the book has given. I don't want to here about modern laws and ideals that go out of context it's a false attribute, I don't want to here about the innocent slavers as once again it is not in the books and goes out of context and is a false attribute, it's about the story in the pages not the ones people make up. Historical references and ideas from other books being applied I get because Martin does do that.

You know I have said it before this is not the first time Martin has addressed slavery in his works. Fevre dream, he used the Vampire Masters and the thralls to mirror pre civil war slavery. And those Vampire masters were bad, bad, creatures. Great read though, now he is doing the same thing in this book except he has embedded multiple POV's within slavery. I am also pretty positive that the Others and the thralls/Wights are a mirror of slavery within the books. Mirroring parallels, and I get the feeling that eventually we will find out that the Wights are being extremly abused, I get the feeling this is why Coldhands is introduced and why Martin has Jon decide he needs to try and communicate with a Wight. The Wight's may become very sympathetic, what they are doing is probably not of there own will but I think they have see it and can understand it but can't control their bodies. That's an educated guess based on Fevre Dream.

The Others and the Slave Masters pretty much complete the idea that Jon and Dany have mirroring parallels with inverted symbolism. But I guess we will see. But again I ask try to keep it in the context of the books and what is relevant to that context. You got false dilemma' fallacy of false choices, argument from incredlity, straw man arguments, arguments of ad hominem, conformation bias, circular reasoning, black and white thinking, suppressed correlative, equivocation, quoting out of context etc... all up and down this thread, and none of that helps discuss the books or the characers. When people start shattering logic and reasoning and actual discussion for the truth in favor of just name calling, arguing and the I am right because I say so argument, or I can insult people because I make excuse for my bad behavior argument then people are doing nothing productive or intresting. We are humans, we know all about emotion and how to fight, is discussion really that hard? If people have to do all that crap I just listed then they are not making very sound arguments or discussions, and it is pretty clear it is being done. The OP is nothing more than a poster seeking a conformation of personal bias. Hey look everything can only happen the way say even though I am not using any text and refuse too and it totally has to happen this way and there are no alternatives and it all turns out the same and I know this even though I lack the information and details that the author has yet to provide and it's not a suppressed correlative at all.

I am sorry but the OP just took reasoning, logic, context, information, text, objectivity and tossed it out the door to try and get justification for a personal belief and opinion. We are talking about the same posters that took slaves and refered to them as insects and supported Xaro in another thread. This is not the first time and neither was that so when Dany fans question this posters ideas, there is some pretty sound reasoning as to why. As has been pointed out why is the a person who openly hates Dany so much starting most of threads about her and on every Dany thread out there? What is the motivation there? You know it's not just attacks on the imaginary character, Dany fans often come under fire, for liking her. So people stalk Dany fans around the boards and will not leave them alone. I think there are one or two threads curently active on the board that are about Dany and were started by a fan or fans of hers. The other stuff is pretty much like this and then somehow it is our fault. People even complain about Dany fans starting all these threads, hell we got complaints about that here, but no Dany fan started this thread.

What was the one argument earlier, ummm you don't like people if they don't like Dany? Not true, check my friends list there are people on there who don't like Dany. The truth is people don't like Dany fans because we like Dany, we are not the ones starting all these troll threads and stalking posters. I should not speak for all Dany fans but there are a lot of people here I do talk to and none of them do that shit. And I know I don't I don't even post here that often, and I think I have started all of one maybe two threads in over two years that happen to have Dany in them among others. I posted maybe once or twice on the reread and a few times on the parallel journey thread. But there are people who hate the fictional character who are constantly on those threads. I am sorry but I am tired of these people telling Dany fans not to throw stones in a glass house when they are running around with a machine gun and can't stop shooting it, it's like they are aiming for as much glass as possible and then complaining about broken glass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, it would be nice if you had at least checked the essay out. If you had done so, you would have known that the author actually rallies against an imperialistic reading of Daenerys arc. In his essay, the author actually describes parrallels between Daenerys campaign and the American Civil War and Reconstruction era.

He starts of by creating a clear overview of the sheer cost of slavery in human misery. His math is much less sloppy than yours by the way, quoting from the essay: 'in the four hundred years or so that Astapor has been in the business of producing Unsullied, two and a half million human beings have been murdered, not counting any deaths on the battlefield'. After that, he starts analyzing Daenerys' campaign to understand why exactly it went haywire.

Another important thing you failed to notice in your eagerness to play Captain Obvious is the fact that the author is analyzing Daenerys campaign up to the moment he has textual information. Since he isn't GRRM, that's up until the end of ADWD and at that particular moment, her campaign against slavery clearly lies in shambles. The author does not make any predictions about the future, but really, even a moron could guess that the slavers aren't coming out of this one on top.

His major complaint (simplifying it here just for you) is that she in the end wasn't ruthless enough in culling the slavers castes and redistributing the wealth in Slavers bay (leaving the slavers powerbase in tact). Dany's eagerness to come to a peaceful solution was thus her major weakness. This was exploited by the slaver caste and used to create the mess that the area is currently in.

So, the next time try to actually use your reading comprehension skills. That should always be the first step. You know before you go about writing a lengthy post totally besides the point and drag poor Nietsche into the fray. It's hard enough to cope with the flimsy "arguments" presented by Dany haters, I expect better of those that support her.

I was clearly responding to the quote you quoted, nothing wrong with that and I am reading it, but it takes more than five minutes. Did I pull the quote out of context because I only used the context it was posted in? You said check it out and here is quote. I respondid to that quote not the essay.

ETA: To be fair it was my own fault for thinking it was based on an article written awhile back by I want to say Rolling stone that basically called Martin a racist because Dany was a white imperialist that was hurting the slavers economy and the slavers are only doing what is right for them. It was a messed up article and if you look at that quote you might see where I thought that, and I had no desire to read it again. But upon your advice I am reading the different article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 OP is the king of said haters.

I can still discuss the character with those who don't passionately hate her though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Why is Dany's arrival referred as "invasion"? Is Jon's idea of making the wildlings cross the Wall also an "invasion"?

Can we get off the whole idea that Dany "invading" vs "arriving to conquer" is a bad thing? For f***'s sake, the US invaded France during WWII, and it's still referred to an invasion (by the victors no less) to this day.

Unless Dany plans on coming in and winning the entirety of Westeros over with rainbows, kisses, and unicorn farts, she's planning on invading it. I care more about why she's invading than that she's invading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Fans and worshipers are a different thing, that's what i'm talking about. A lot of Dany's fans defend her without being rude, but the worshipers don't even want to know, they just want to pick up a fight. And I don't think this is a Daenerys hate thread, the problem in this thread was the haters and the worshipers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...