In this case they already won. The alliance threw away more lives and didn’t fully commit. They were instead beaten back. The death of rhastakhan only rallied the troll tribes. And no, they aren’t going to take advantage of the disarray either. Meanwhile at sylvanas’ house.
Sylv:“Nathanos!! Get off your lazy butt and get me a blight can from the fridge!!”
Nathanos: “H-here you g-go dark lady”
Sylv: Guzzle Guzzle Guzzle
this is where i’m at. No matter what the Alliance does to the horde at this point its justified. It virtually already was before this, but Teldrassil really solidified that. Genocide is not a game.
And yet, here we are.
Even as a primarily alliance player this annoys me because it has a permanent effect on the lore. Even if Sylvanas dies and Saurfang is warchief. The “new” Horde was okay with genociding night elves.
If I recall, the Horde doesn’t win any battles without resorting to WMDs or something since Cata. When they don’t it ends up being a stalemate. Zones like the Barrens and Ashenvale are stalemates, both sides use conventional tactics and both sides remain in the zone by the end of the quest chain. However a zone like Western Plaguelands is won by the Horde when they use the Val’kyr. They also use Val’kyr to win against the Kirin’tor mages in Silverpine. They use the blight to destroy Southshore. And the Horde use a nuke on a druid village in Stonetalon. And obviously the Horde nuke Theramore.
Who the hell fights fair when it comes to war? It’s not a game, a hobby, a pastime, it’s something you fight to WIN. No one asked whether it would be “fair” for the United States to use a bomb that could turn an untouched city to ash in one stroke.
So…what is defined as “fair” is dependent. We do have for instance the Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC) in real life specifically to govern what is and is not acceptable conduct by military forces. We also have various conventions and treaties that impose specific costs if violated. Hell, part of the reason the U.S. has invested so much into precision guided munitions is because of these exact reasons. For instance, the U.S. does not view sacking a city (such as was the norm in the 17th century) to be considered acceptable behavior. As any JAG will attest, saying all is fair in war is…a misnomer,
Unless of course the United States is at war with the country the city resides in. and decides that there are reasons or interests served in doing so. Even if it means prolonging a war so that a city-burning toy can be properly and publicly tested in front of the world. Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki beg to differ with your statement.
All three of those occured before the current LoAC became codified, as did the case of Hanoi. It was not until the reorganization in the late 70’s early 80s that the emphasis became centered on precision attacks. Also, all 3 of those cases were not sacks. Which are a specific thing. You did not have mass looting and spoils systems such as existed in the17th century, there is an actual difference there.
The Horde objective was to make Lordaeron a fatal trap for the Aliance leadership in addition to decimating it’s army. At best, they only acheived a limited success, thanks to the arrival of Jaina Proudmoore. So it pretty much wound up being a wash.
What are you Alliance players going to do when the Alliance teams up with the Horde yet again some time later down the line? You know it will happen.
You do understand that the United States does not consider itself subject to any World Court? So there actually is no such thing as a governing body that the United States recognises as beholding it to follow ANY convention. In fact, with the current political atmosphere, Europe is considering arming itself to defend AGAINST aggression by the United States.
Have you not read my post history Arazlok? : P
You’re right. It was only a means to an end. My mistake conflating the destruction of Lordaeron with the goal of wiping out the Alliance leaders.
While you are right the U.S. does not consider the World Court having authority over its sovereignty, the significance inherent in signing treaties is that there are costs that can be imposed by the international community against the US. Such as sanctions and other forms of targeted economic and political effects that can impact the U.S. It is why the U.S. has traditionally taken its treaty obligations more seriously than not. It is also why recent moves such as Bolton’s walking away from the INF treaty are so concerning, because it represents a significant departure from U.S. treaty norms. Particularly since treaties typically are to the U.S. advantage and can be used to constrain opponents from acting in manners outside of the international normal. And I could write a hell of alot on why other actions in the past two years have been…lets say atypical and leave it at that shall we?
Fair enough
Saiphas, you seem pretty neutral in your statements, and that posts was more to people saying, “can never work with the Horde again.”
ah, fair. Make no mistake, I am Blue to the core. I do tend to approach things from an Alliance player (and an EK/SW one at that). Yet, I recognize the limitations of both the need for balance for both sides, and that Horde players are just as important as I am.
But of course, but there is a major difference between say you and someone who spouts, “the Horde should just be eliminated.” You understand that a faction isn’t going to simply disappear because bad things happened. Nor do you take it out on the players who play said faction.
I never said anyone HAS too, but it’s telling when one faction can only win battles when they pull stuff like that.