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

[David Floyd]

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]

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.

Of course I can't. I can just point at facts and state my interpretation, much as you're doing.

What facts again?

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.

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.

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.

[orange]

yeah, thanks Ramo

I wasn't doubting the revolution in Mexico, I was doubting that Americans would percieve Zimmerman as a non-threat.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I took his comment to be an intentional smart-ass circular argument that neither desired nor merited a response.

It was meant to be replica of your usual position on international trade issues. If that is how you see your arguements, so be it.

My argument is moral, not legal.

I'll have to remind you of this sometime.

[orange]

Originally posted by Ramo
IIRC, it's a very credible theory, actually. I think it was in my history textbook.

Atlantis is mentioned in one of my history textbooks too.

[David Floyd]

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.

What facts again?

I could say the same to you. Stop trolling.

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

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.

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?

[David Floyd]

I'll have to remind you of this sometime.

Sure, but don't expect to score points - you should know arguing with me on politics and philosophy is akin to banging your head against a brick wall

[orange]

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?

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

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.

[Ramo]

Atlantis is mentioned in one of my history textbooks too.

Mentioned as a credible theory.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Floyd, KH is right. Wilson NEVER wanted to go to war and only did so when public opinion was soooo high for it that he had to or the Democrats would suffer. If Roosevelt or Taft won in 1912 (as Bull Moose) we would have entered the war much earlier... maybe by 1915. The entire Republican party was basically for entry into the war to protect Britain. And the press only fanned the flames. War makes for good news.

Wilson's words after Congress passed the Declaration of War were "those damned fools". Doesn't sound like a warmonger to me.

[orange]

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:

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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 bull**** answer to fix it? I suppose you could call the Marshall Plan a bribe to keep Europe from going Communisy, too, couldn't you?

[Ramo]

BTW orange, what's with your flag? I don't recognize it as Prussian or German...

[chequita guevara]

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.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
BTW orange, what's with your flag? I don't recognize it as Prussian or German...

Imperial German Naval flag, map of the German Empire.