 |
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
IIRC, it's a very credible theory, actually. I think it was in my history textbook. |
I've heard it too - and look at other deceptions pulled by both the British and others (various Overlord deceptions, for example), and tell me it isn't a possibility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
 |
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
It isn't inconsistent. I already granted the problem was not legal, but moral  |
Interesting then, how you claim that everything you say about your ideal liberal pacifist government is based on morality, yet now you say that preventing a bad person from buying a gun is a moral thing even though you oppose gun control. Yeah, I'd say that's inconsitant.
quote:
Of course I can't. I can just point at facts and state my interpretation, much as you're doing. |
What facts again?
quote:
He lacked an excuse - he needs Congress, ya know |
Yeah, it was one giant conspiracy theory. He secretly wanted to get involved in World War I from the start, but knew he couldn't get elected on that platform. So he waited until he had a trigger. Lusitania wasn't good enough. Sinking of 5 other merchant ships wasn't good enough. But jeez at the end of 1917, when Europe was exhausted, and Zimmerman slipped out, we finally had 'enough' cause for Wilson to 'finally' get support for the war.
You buy into conspiracy theories to much.
quote:
Funny - it was the British, not the Germans, who prevented US trade with most of continental Europe |
It was the Germans blowing up ships with Americans on them, not the British.
quote:
I see - Wilson felt the Germans had no right to attempt to protect American civilians. |
No, perhaps he felt that Germany running ads implying that they reserved the right to shoot at any non-military ships in 'x' waters would cause anti-Germany feelings, which he attempted to prevent prior to 1917 on many occasions, with the goal of avoiding war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Interesting then, how you claim that everything you say about your ideal liberal pacifist government is based on morality, yet now you say that preventing a bad person from buying a gun is a moral thing even though you oppose gun control. Yeah, I'd say that's inconsitant. |
You're distorting my words.
It's immoral for me to sell a gun to someone who will commit a crime, but it's also immoral for the government to tell me that I can't, ie restrict my natural rights to liberty and property.
I could say the same to you. Stop trolling.
quote:
Yeah, it was one giant conspiracy theory. He secretly wanted to get involved in World War I from the start, but knew he couldn't get elected on that platform. So he waited until he had a trigger. Lusitania wasn't good enough. Sinking of 5 other merchant ships wasn't good enough. But jeez at the end of 1917, when Europe was exhausted, and Zimmerman slipped out, we finally had 'enough' cause for Wilson to 'finally' get support for the war.
You buy into conspiracy theories to much. |
Oh, so Wilson DIDN'T need a casus belli to get Congress to declare war.
Wait tell Congress hears that one 
quote:
It was the Germans blowing up ships with Americans on them, not the British. |
Americans the Germans tried to warn but weren't allowed to, (ostensibly to "avoid panic", is it?), and ships that were valid targets.
quote:
No, perhaps he felt that Germany running ads implying that they reserved the right to shoot at any non-military ships in 'x' waters would cause anti-Germany feelings, which he attempted to prevent prior to 1917 on many occasions, with the goal of avoiding war. |
Which do you think would enflame an isolationist Americans more:
1)Dead Americans and a sunk British ship
2)A sunk British ship and the implication that Germany can sink more British ships
Which do YOU imagine would enrage America more?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Che already explained this had to do with the fact that merchies would ram U-Boats. |
Is that a moral excuse to fire at will, or even a legal one? 
quote:
Fine. Selling weapons to a known criminal who will commit criminal acts is certainly immoral - but not illegal. |
let me jot this down for future reference...thank you
quote:
You're using the word "power" very loosely, but in any event the Zimmerman note was not an offer to immediately ally and go to war against the US - it was simply where if America goes to war with us, you go to war with them. Sorta like the British/French guarantee of Poland, or, perhaps even more accurately, NATO, neither of which you would oppose. Consistency, consistency |
And no, it wasn't defensive. It was "we're going to prod the Yank...if he declares war on us, and you declare war on him, when we win - you get your rightful territory back"
as for the consistency argument - I believe in alliances to control hegemons. I don't believe in bribes to tip the scales in a stalemate war. But regardless, international law was a bud at this point, not nearly what it is today, or even what it was in 1939. So different times, different actions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
You're distorting my words.
It's immoral for me to sell a gun to someone who will commit a crime, but it's also immoral for the government to tell me that I can't, ie restrict my natural rights to liberty and property. |
So both are immoral. The perfect system your mind has concocted isn't so perfect after all, it seems. :gasp:
quote:
Oh, so Wilson DIDN'T need a casus belli to get Congress to declare war.
Wait tell Congress hears that one |
Did I say that? No, my implications were that they already had it.
quote:
Americans the Germans tried to warn but weren't allowed to, (ostensibly to "avoid panic", is it?), and ships that were valid targets. |
The threat was known, they didn't need an ad to clarify. Americans rode on the ships against better judgement. But that doesn't mean that they should have lost their lives. Germany is to blame for sinking those ships. Again, the threat was real.
quote:
Which do you think would enflame an isolationist Americans more:
1)Dead Americans and a sunk British ship
2)A sunk British ship and the implication that Germany can sink more British ships
Which do YOU imagine would enrage America more? |
Option 3) Dead Americans and a sunk British ship and the implication that Germany can sink more British ships and make more dead Americans
Ads wouldn't have stopped Americans from getting on those boats.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Is that a moral excuse to fire at will, or even a legal one? |
It's certainly no less immoral than the British blockade - both sides were in the wrong, but some of those actions, while wrong, can be understood in light of the actions of the other side.
quote:
let me jot this down for future reference...thank you |
As long as you realize I'm talking about myself selling the weapons, not whether or not I'm allowed to sell them.
quote:
And no, it wasn't defensive. It was "we're going to prod the Yank...if he declares war on us, and you declare war on him, when we win - you get your rightful territory back" |
Why would Germany "prod the Yank"? They were worried about England "prodding the Yank" into the war, and wanted some insurance.
quote:
as for the consistency argument - I believe in alliances to control hegemons. I don't believe in bribes to tip the scales in a stalemate war. But regardless, international law was a bud at this point, not nearly what it is today, or even what it was in 1939. So different times, different actions. |
So, basically, you realized your mistake and came up with an obvious bullshit answer to fix it? I suppose you could call the Marshall Plan a bribe to keep Europe from going Communisy, too, couldn't you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orange
Is that a moral excuse to fire at will, or even a legal one? |
It is both. The moment that merchantmen began trying to sink U-boats, they ceased to be non-combatants. I feel badly for the civilians caught in the middle, since they did not tell the captains to risk their lives by trying to ram U-boats. Personally, I'd rather be put to sea (or rather, taken prisoner on a U-boat, the Atlantic's not a nice place to be in a life boat) then sent to a watery grave because some merhcant captain is suffering from an overblown sense of nationalism and testosterone poisoning.
BTW, the idea that the Zimmerman note was a forgery is still considered credible. Don't dismiss it out of hand. It did come from the British Embassy, after all, and it has never been proven the the Germans actually did try to send it. It will remain a debatable point for a long, long time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orange
|
|
It doesn't matter what your name is!
Feb 2000
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
It's certainly no less immoral than the British blockade - both sides were in the wrong, but some of those actions, while wrong, can be understood in light of the actions of the other side. |
No one is painting Britain as innocent, so why do you keep bringing this point up? You implied many things, mainly that Wilson wanted to get into World War I, and that Wilson was not an isolationist as far as World War I goes.
quote:
Why would Germany "prod the Yank"? They were worried about England "prodding the Yank" into the war, and wanted some insurance. |
Not on purpose, but they knew that their actions against British ships carrying American passangers were going to result in America declaring war. So they made a deal before hand to ensure that they had some counterweight. They even made deals about what territory Mexico would get for their help. You don't see Britain and America doing that with German colonies, do you?
quote:
So, basically, you realized your mistake and came up with an obvious bullshit answer to fix it? I suppose you could call the Marshall Plan a bribe to keep Europe from going Communisy, too, couldn't you? |
Mistake? What mistake? That wasn't a bullshit answer. And I don't see where your analogy fits.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:18
|
|
GP, I already admitted a had no idea about international law, that my argument was a moral one primarily, and I already explained the supposed inconsistency.
More later, time for school.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
Around here "The Shot Heard 'Round The World" generally refers to the opening volleys of the American Revolution on the roads of Massachusetts.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-04-2002 11:57
tomorrow and I'll end up having a 
day
.
|