01-04-2002 10:34									#31
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Let me tell you what I see every time you post something about the US' involvement internationally:

"They were defending themselves and it doesn't matter what they did because we were to blame for it"

Adventurism might have played a large part in the US' problems worldwide, but not everything can be explained that easily.

EDIT: the smiley was rude. Sorry.

	01-04-2002 10:35									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd First off, we both know that the US was selling war material ti Britain.

So what? Are we not allowed to sell weapons to other nations?

quote: We also both know that the Zimmerman Note was essentially defensive in nature.

Yeah, right

quote: Further, we both know that I hate Wilson, if nothing else, because of his internationalism.

I was previously unaware. But now I know. Figures.

	01-04-2002 10:37									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd KH- True, but again this was due to US government propaganda and a failure to adequately warn US civilians against traveling in British ships that just so happened to be carrying war material, or other valid targets.

You don't think that the Zimmerman telegraph had anything to do with that?

	01-04-2002 10:37									#34
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think it's clear that without US government propaganda or easily avoidable - by govt warnings - American civilian deaths, the US public wouldn't have supported war.

This lays the blame on Wilson, not the Kaiser.

And all the Zimmerman Note did was propose that IF the US declared war on Germany, Mexico would go to war with the US - hardly threatening to the US, if it didn't want to go to war.

We ARE to blame for almost every war we've fought, because we could have easily avoided it through diplomacy or accurately informing the US public of what went on.

	01-04-2002 10:38									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd The German embassy, for example, tried to take out ads in US papers warning that the Lusitania was a valid war target, but the Wilson Administration suppressed this, making Wilson, not Germany, responsible for US deaths on that ship.

So, the fact that Germany tried to warn US citizens that they were going to attack a ship with US citizens on it means that it's not their fault people died? They attacked a commercial ship, despite accusations that it was carrying weapons.

	01-04-2002 10:39									#36
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: So what? Are we not allowed to sell weapons to other nations?

Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war.

	01-04-2002 10:41									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It WAS carrying weapons and war material, such as artllery fuses.

Germany exercised its moral duty in attempting to prevent foreign, neutral civilians from traveling on a war target - why would the US government possibly act immorally to suppress that warning?

	01-04-2002 10:42									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war

Not an issue. None of the other belligerents could challenge British supremacy on the high seas.

	01-04-2002 10:42									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Anyone think that Russia might have had a communist inspired civil war by 1918 or 20 that would have allowed even a wimpy German general to implement the Schliffen plan as it was designed?

The war delayed the Russian Revolution by about two years. Remember, Russia had just gone througha failed revolution in 1905. By 1914, strike activity was at an all time high. Bolshevik influence in Russia was huge, and they were expecting a revolution in 1915. Had that happened, WWI, as we know it, may never have happened.

As generally happens, a revolutionary wave woul have been touched off. How it would have turned out is hard to know, since neither the working class nor the capitalist class was worn out by four years of the most horrific war.

	01-04-2002 10:45									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I think it's clear that without US government propaganda or easily avoidable - by govt warnings - American civilian deaths, the US public wouldn't have supported war.

Even if the ads had been placed, you can't guarantee that no Americans would have been on the ship. And there would have been the same outcry when it was sunk.

quote: And all the Zimmerman Note did was propose that IF the US declared war on Germany, Mexico would go to war with the US - hardly threatening to the US, if it didn't want to go to war.

Interesting how you leave out the part about unrestricted submarine warfare

quote: We ARE to blame for almost every war we've fought, because we could have easily avoided it through diplomacy or accurately informing the US public of what went on.

sorry DF, that's just dreamworld idealism

	01-04-2002 10:45									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Not an issue. None of the other belligerents could challenge British supremacy on the high seas.

A)We had no desire to sell war material to Germany
B)Britain wouldn't have let us, and would have committed acts of war to stop it
C)Totally irrelevant, anyway - we shouldn't have been selling to ANYONE.

	01-04-2002 10:45									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by orange So, the fact that Germany tried to warn US citizens that they were going to attack a ship with US citizens on it means that it's not their fault people died? They attacked a commercial ship, despite accusations that it was carrying weapons.

It was carrying weapons. One torpedo couldn't sink of ship of that size unless it hit a magazine.

As for the civilians, killing civilians is wrong, but if they wander into a war zone, they must accept the responsibility that they may get shot. This is why I don't go into war zones.

	01-04-2002 10:46									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Wow. Che and I at least partially agree.

	01-04-2002 10:47									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war.

So what? We can sell weapons to whoever we want to, and deny our markets to anyone we want to as well, wouldn't you agree?

And yes, I know it was carrying weapons. Accusations was the wrong word, but I was speaking of 'before' the attack, meaning they assumed it was carrying weapons (which it was...)

	01-04-2002 10:50									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd C)Totally irrelevant, anyway - we shouldn't have been selling to ANYONE.

Why not? It's our stuff, we can sell it to whoever we want to.

	01-04-2002 10:50									#46
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Even if the ads had been placed, you can't guarantee that no Americans would have been on the ship. And there would have been the same outcry when it was sunk.

You're partially right.
Germany AND the US would have fulfilled their moral duty to protect innocent life.
Further, if we're talking about a coupla dozen Americans dying in an attack the Germans warned about, while traveling in an obvious war target, there would NOT have been the same outcry. If the Wilson Administration told the truth.

quote: Interesting how you leave out the part about unrestricted submarine warfare

I'd call that a necessary evil against the British blockade - again, as che said, avoid war zones and you're fine

	01-04-2002 10:51									#47
	Support Apolyton

quote: C)Totally irrelevant, anyway - we shouldn't have been selling to ANYONE

I thought you were against government intervention in business. Whether or not you had the intention of doing so doesn't matter. The British threat of firing on German supply vessels also doesn't matter, since they wouldn't have gotten within 2000 miles of New York before being sunk. The basic fact is that Wilson didn't start the war against strenuous objections from the people of the US; he started it with their tacit assent, and thus does not deserve your condemnation for it.

	01-04-2002 10:51									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd A)We had no desire to sell war material to Germany

Wrong, we tried to sell to both sides. After Jutland, however, it wasn't possible with the British blockade and the minefields in the North Sea. But we made loans to boths sides, and initially sold to both sides.

quote: B)Britain wouldn't have let us, and would have committed acts of war to stop it

They did commit acts of war, seizing vessels bound for neutral countries that carried material bound for Germany, mining neutral waters, etc. However, by that point, we had loaned them more money, and we weren't willing to risk the money.

quote: C)Totally irrelevant, anyway - we shouldn't have been selling to ANYONE.

From a libertarian standpoint, which you claim to have, this is false. We should be willing to sell to whomever is willing to pay.

From an ethical standpoint, I agree. We should have cut both sides off to credit and war materials. The war might have ended much sooner and with several million less dead. But hey, profit's profit.

	01-04-2002 10:52									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: So what? We can sell weapons to whoever we want to, and deny our markets to anyone we want to as well, wouldn't you agree?

I'm pretty sure that was against international law (selling weapons to a belligerent), BUT if it wasn't, wouldn't you agree there are still moral problems with this?

quote: And yes, I know it was carrying weapons. Accusations was the wrong word, but I was speaking of 'before' the attack, meaning they assumed it was carrying weapons (which it was...)

You don't make assumptions like that without some sort of evidence.

	01-04-2002 10:53									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I'd call that a necessary evil against the British blockade - again, as che said, avoid war zones and you're fine

Why should Germany be able to declare that it owns waters it doesn't own, thus controlling US trade (even non military trade) Where did they get that right?

	01-04-2002 10:55									#51
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I'm pretty sure that was against international law (selling weapons to a belligerent),

What do you care about international law?

	01-04-2002 10:56									#52
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I'm pretty sure that was against international law (selling weapons to a belligerent), BUT if it wasn't, wouldn't you agree there are still moral problems with this?

Of course I agree that there is a moral problem with it. But at the time there was no overarching authority to decide legality. And as Che pointed out (and which I didn't previously know - thanks che!) we had tried to sell weapons to 'the enemy' as well.

Why are you taking such a pro-government intervention stance on this. I swear if this was about gun control you'd do a 180 on me and start talking about how you have the right to buy a gun from someone, despite how you intend to use it, without any intervention - and that's in a system that DOES have overarching authority. I don't get your thought process.

quote: You don't make assumptions like that without some sort of evidence.

But they couldn't be sure until they fired. Were they right - yes. But that doesn't mean they knew for sure.

	01-04-2002 10:57									#53
	Tired of ads?

Che at this point I'm talking morals, not Libertarianism - we might be free to do an action that is still wrong.

quote: Wrong, we tried to sell to both sides. After Jutland, however, it wasn't possible with the British blockade and the minefields in the North Sea. But we made loans to boths sides, and initially sold to both sides.

Did we? That's fine - but over 95+% easily went to Britain, and again, as you say the British prevented it.

quote: They did commit acts of war, seizing vessels bound for neutral countries that carried material bound for Germany, mining neutral waters, etc. However, by that point, we had loaned them more money, and we weren't willing to risk the money.

Hardly a point in Britain's favor - or ours.

quote: Why should Germany be able to declare that it owns waters it doesn't own, thus controlling US trade (even non military trade) Where did they get that right?

For purposes of this discussion, about the same time the British did.

	01-04-2002 10:58									#54
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I believe International law arose out of the horrors of this war, and wasn't too codified before it.

	01-04-2002 10:58									#55
	Support Apolyton

The British didn't fire on ships containing large numbers of US civilians as passengers. The Germans did. What do you care if they fired on German merchant vessels?

	01-04-2002 11:01									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Why are you taking such a pro-government intervention stance on this. I swear if this was about gun control you'd do a 180 on me and start talking about how you have the right to buy a gun from someone, despite how you intend to use it, without any intervention - and that's in a system that DOES have overarching authority. I don't get your thought process.

How is my stance pro-government? I'm simply saying Germany was justified in firing on cargo ships carrying contraband, and that morally no one should have sold to any belligerent.

quote: But they couldn't be sure until they fired. Were they right - yes. But that doesn't mean they knew for sure.

Yes. And we didn't know "for sure" that the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor

quote: I believe International law arose out of the horrows of this war, and wasn't too codified before it.

Could be, but a)my argument is more a moral one, and b)I'm fairly certain there were still various treaties and agreements.

	01-04-2002 11:03									#57
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

[quote]The British didn't fire on ships containing large numbers of US civilians as passengers.[quote]

In a large part due to the fact that US "civilian" ships WEREN'T trying to smuggle war material to Germany

	01-04-2002 11:04									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The Lusitania wasn't a US ship.

	01-04-2002 11:04									#59
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse The British didn't fire on ships containing large numbers of US civilians as passengers. The Germans did. What do you care if they fired on German merchant vessels?

That's because the British used surface ships, who could safely stop a civilian ship and search it or impound it. Because the German surface fleet was effectively nuetralized, they had to rely on submarines.

At first, sub commanders did surface their ships and try and order the civilians off the ships, before sinking them. However, subs are easily sunk by ramming, and merchant captains quickly learned they could avoid being stranded in the middle of the Atlantic by ramming subs. At the point that you begin acting like a combatant, you must expect that you will be treated like a combatant. And civilian ships were then sunk without warning, for the safety of the U-boat crews.

	01-04-2002 11:05									#60
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Did we? That's fine - but over 95+% easily went to Britain, and again, as you say the British prevented it.

Who cares? We obviously went along with it. We're not in the wrong for selling weapons to britain. It's legally untouchable - c'mon, where's the pacifist liberal inside you on this one? You can sell weapons to someone, and they can use it to kill people, and that DOESN'T make you responsible for the destruction cuased by those weapons pre-International Law (which, as Che pointed out, arose after this war)

quote: For purposes of this discussion, about the same time the British did.

So because Britain did something wrong, it's ok that Germany did something wrong as well? Two wrongs don't make a right.