What Is The World Like If 'The Shot Heard Round The World' Is Never Fired?

[David Floyd]

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.

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

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[chequita guevara]

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.

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.

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.

[David Floyd]

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?

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.

[orange]

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?

[DinoDoc]

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?

[orange]

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.

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.

[David Floyd]

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

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.

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.

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.

[chequita guevara]

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

[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?

[David Floyd]

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.

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

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.

[David Floyd]

[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

[KrazyHorse]

The Lusitania wasn't a US ship.

[chequita guevara]

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.

[orange]

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)

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.