> Kelly was more of a mass murderer than Vlad was, because he was > convincing people to, in effect, kill themselves for him. I would strongly disagree here. Kelly wasn't asking people to kill themselves for him, he was asking people to kill themselves for themselves. Kelly was asking people to revolt and to face the might of the empire on behalf of the lower classes of Teckla of Easterners, not on behalf of himself. Kelly, in way, shape, or form implies anywhere that the purpose of all of this is to put him, Kelly, in power, but to put the Teckla and Easterners in power. Kelly isn't asking people to die for him. We might get that impression from the books, but remember that the books are being told from Vlad's point of view, and I don't think I need to belabour the point that Vlad doesn't think very highly of Kelly, nor really understand the politics of the movement fully. > Those innocents didn't deserve to die; None of the Teckla and Easterners deserved to die, but if they feel that they don't deserve to be oppressed by the Empire either. And if one wanted to work under the assumption that Kelly ordered all of this, when he ordered his "troops" (if you will) to confront the Phoenix Gaurds, he didn't think they would lose, he thought they would win. Sure, that's letting some people die, because, it's war (class warfare, quite literally, to be exact), but it's convincing people to kill themselves, but rather, convincing people to kill their oppressors. >> The risks and stakes were much smaller for Vlad (money and single >> lives) than for the revolutionaries (more money and more lives), but >> the morality of either can be looked at though several different >> color lenses and appear pretty much how you would like. I think if people think a bit, you'll realize that Vlad has way more money than the revolutionaries. I mean, remember, this is the guy who owns South Adrilanka. These Teckla and Easterners own a flat and the clothes on their back. > > Again, his _own_ life. Yes, morals are all relative, and I'm sure that > Kelly thought he was justified in all of this. I'm saying that to me, > he ain't. I guess my view is that if Kelly were alive today, he'd be > trying to start a revolution against the US gov't for the massive > social injustice that it fosters in this country. While I agree with > that argument (i.e. massive inequity between poor & rich, and still > growing), I don't think that revolution is yet justified. I also don't > see the coming election as one that could possibly fix the problems; > perhaps revolution is the only way. BUT, I would recommend exhausting > all further means as really-good-tries before you resort to > revolution. > Well, in the cast of this hypothetical revolution in the U.S., I suppose Kelly would say that isn't some 215-odd years enough years of oppression? The Teckla and Easterners are somewhat analagous to the historical and present state of African Americans in this country. Hell, maybe the Teckla and Easterners have it better off every once in a while; at least the Teckla get the empire once a cycle. I mean, you do realize that the horrible injustices against the Teckla and Easterners really does warrant violent revolution. These people are treated as second-class citizens, and are serfs or maybe at best tenent farmers. So what if the Gods or the cycle ordains it? If you asked a Nazi in the 1930s, or a slave holder in the 1850s, they'd both tell you that God ordained the oppression they caused. > Just my $0.02. Strayed from the topic a little, haven't we? :) > Yeah, I think I have too. ;)