Originally Posted by
Wildberry
T
You're being ridiculously dishonest here. A fire had burned a significant chunk of Orgrimmar. Even Cairne, one of Garrosh's foremost critics, praised his decision to rebuild the city. What's your complaint here? That he bothered to rebuild Orgrimmar with material that isn't likely to burn to a crisp, after Orgrimmar burned down because it looks mean? I mean what?
The sentence is a complete thought. I'm aware of the fire and why he rebuilt, I'm saying that as a result of his rebuilding and redesigning he evicted some residents he felt were too weak to defend the city. The more complete eviction that happened after portions of the Horde rallied against him and take over of certain areas didn't occur until much later in Mists.
The city was segregated. People weren't evicted.
Both happened, the two are not mutually exclusive
Segregation doesn't excuse treason. Nice job putting the word treasonous in quotes by the way. Threatening a legitimate sovereign and warning an enemy of an upcoming attack from your faction are both inarguably treasonous.
I did not mean to imply that none of the actions taken were treasonous. My point was that his bigotry was present and open for all to see prior to any of the actions being taken. Some of the action were not treasonous, but some were.
The Quillboar situation was able to be resolved peacefully. Ashenvale wasn't. That was tried, and it failed. Are we supposed to criticize Garrosh for taking the only option left on the table, simply because that was his preferred solution?
The Ashenvale conflict was entirely unnecessary though. His whole purpose was just to destroy the Alliance outposts there and build another huge city rivaling Orgrimmar in scope and power. Gathering resources and whatnot was a secondary objective and would not have needed such a bold bloody offensive to accomplish.
Yes, obviously Garrosh's solutions didn't work long-term. He was betrayed halfway through and lost.
Rightfully so. He betrayed every other race that was not Orcs. He was Warchief of the HORDE not just the Orcs. He was a terrible leader to everyone but the Orcs
Garrosh didn't completely disregard what it needed. The Horde was starving, trade had been cut and diplomacy had failed. He took action to secure what his people needed.
The Horde needed water because his renovations polluted their water supply, unintentionally, I'll admit. The water problem was addressed with deliveries from Mulgore and the hostilities with the Quillboar attacking the water caravans was addressed when the botched operation Garrosh lead was salvaged by Baine.
As far as advice, what advice? Baseless accusations like Cairne made? Death threats like Vol'jin made?
The advice from his advisers that attempted to do things less aggressively than what he wanted. Garrosh made it clear from day 1 that he had very little experience and no interest in being diplomatic preferring to wage war and take what he wants.
And you seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the Horde works. If his underlings feel like he's doing a poor job they can challenge him to Mak'gora. Only Cairne did that. Threatening to shoot him from "da shadows bruddamon" isn't legitimate, it's treasonous.
Why would anyone challenge him to Mak'gora after he unfairly won against Cairne? I dont' see why anyone would challenge him to honorable combat when by the time things escalated they didn't see him as honorable. They'd also be stupid for trying given his martial prowess. As much as I disliked him, he was set-up to be a badass on the battlefield.
The Tauren and Trolls, considering they swore the Blood Oath of the Horde, which literally sets up the Horde as an absolutist dictatorship.
Fair point, but I disagree with the idea that the Horde is an absolute dictatorship. It hasn't worked that way for a long time even if that is how the oath is worded.
Great Godwin there. Next time you read history, try to have an eye out for nuance, eh?
In the areas that I don't think I need to elaborate on here Garrosh directly correlates to Hitler. There's no nuance needed. I shouldn't have to elaborate or go line by line why they're similar
Is (justified) racism the crime of the century now? Do "wrong opinions" excuse treason? No, that's ridiculous.
Racism is never justified. Wrong opinions don't excuse treason, but horrible wrong decisions justify the actions taken against a horrible dictator.