Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm quite unclear as to what you find so funny. Your original claim was that the Germans posted a notice stating that they were going to sink the Lusitania. I stated that that was not exactly true, and it's not. The notice doesn't even mention the Lusitania. It says that any British-flagged ship may be sunk. You clearly implied that the Germans deliberately targeted the Lusitania ahead of time, and I demonstrated that that is not the case.

The sky is not blue and the grass is not green.

Do you need me to demonstrate that these statements can be massaged to be found false?

 

[ronpaulisright]

They wanted war. war is good business for the banksters.

 

[SpitfireIX]

dang spitfire, gullible much?

It's like "here, hit us"

They were asking for it. You don't prove anything this way spitfire.

I'm afraid your post doesn't make any sense. Who was "asking for it?"

 

[ronpaulisright]

I'm afraid your post doesn't make any sense. Who was "asking for it?"

The people who allowed the ship to sail in war infested waters. duh.

They wanted this war.

 

[SpitfireIX]

The people who allowed the ship to sail in war infested waters. duh.

They wanted this war.

So are you saying that the British should simply have stopped carrying on any trade with the United States? How do you suppose that would have affected Britain's ability to continue fighting the war?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

So are you saying that the British should simply have stopped carrying on any trade with the United States? How do you suppose that would have affected Britain's ability to continue fighting the war?

Did Britain have motivation to engage America directly in the war?

 

[ronpaulisright]

Well, I'm saying that the americans should have been keen on what was going on and should not have had american civilians on those ships.

There shouldn't have been american civilians sailing through those waters when what was going on.... was going on.

The real question is should america had traded with a country that was at war?

 

[SpitfireIX]

The sky is not blue and the grass is not green.

Do you need me to demonstrate that these statements can be massaged to be found false?

I'm not interested in any attempted demonstrations of sophistry. I'm interested in having you explain, clearly and with no attempts at obfuscation or circumlocution, why you feel that a general notice that any British-flagged ship entering the waters around the British Isles was liable to be sunk is exactly equivalent to an announcement that the Germans specifically planned to sink the Lusitania.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm not interested in any attempted demonstrations of sophistry. I'm interested in having you explain, clearly and with no attempts at obfuscation or circumlocution, why you feel that a general notice that any British-flagged ship entering the waters around the British Isles was liable to be sunk is exactly equivalent to an announcement that the Germans specifically planned to sink the Lusitania.

As soon as you can demonstrate unequivocally that the sky IS blue and the grass IS green.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Did Britain have motivation to engage America directly in the war?

Of course. How is that any sort of evidence of anything? I have a motive to kill my parents because I stand to inherit a nice amount of money from them. If God forbid they're murdered tomorrow, would that be any sort of evidence that I'd done it??

 

[ronpaulisright]

Write in Ron Paul.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Well, I'm saying that the americans should have been keen on what was going on and should not have had american civilians on those ships.

There shouldn't have been american civilians sailing through those waters when what was going on.... was going on.

And this should have been prevented how? You claim to be a great libertarian, yet you would have restricted the freedom of Americans to travel to a foreign country of their choosing simply because they might have been injured or killed. How is that any different from the "nanny state" mentality that you libertarians are forever decrying?

The real question is should america had traded with a country that was at war?

Yet you claim that we goaded Japan into attacking us. Perhaps you were unaware of this, but the primary cause of Japan's going to war with the US was our oil embargo. You can't have it both ways; if we shouldn't have traded with Britain prior to our entry into World War I, then we shouldn't have traded with Japan prior to our entry into World War II. Now which one is it?

 

[SpitfireIX]

As soon as you can demonstrate unequivocally that the sky IS blue and the grass IS green.

I'll leave it to the readers to decide who's being serious, and who isn't.

 

[ronpaulisright]

And this should have been prevented how? You claim to be a great libertarian, yet you would have restricted the freedom of Americans to travel to a foreign country of their choosing simply because they might have been injured or killed. How is that any different from the "nanny state" mentality that you libertarians are forever decrying?




Yet you claim that we goaded Japan into attacking us. Perhaps you were unaware of this, but the primary cause of Japan's going to war with the US was our oil embargo. You can't have it both ways; if we shouldn't have traded with Britain prior to our entry into World War I, then we shouldn't have traded with Japan prior to our entry into World War II. Now which one is it?

Trade is fine but having american civilians aboard that ship during war times is not ok, but I see your point. Why sail a ship across war infested waters? also, we froze their assets, broke international law and japan was furious and retaliated. So the american people should be able to do what they want and have the right to travel, but, I don't think war should have been the product of the tragedy that was lusitania. After lusitania, we shouldn't have gone to war.

Japan went to war with the US because roosevelt broke the rules and instigated war with japan. Look what henry stinson said on the matter.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Of course. How is that any sort of evidence of anything? I have a motive to kill my parents because I stand to inherit a nice amount of money from them. If God forbid they're murdered tomorrow, would that be any sort of evidence that I'd done it??

That is a deranged thought process.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Yet you claim that we goaded Japan into attacking us.

No, we stopped selling war supplies to them

The same general reason the Germans attacked a vessel known to have Americans on it, because we were supplying the British with war supplies.

The world does not happen in a vacuum.

What would your reaction be if your parents cut you off and you had to fend for yourself? Now, consider your parents funding your ex-girlfriend at the same time. What would your reaction be?
Would your parents be goading you?

 

[SpitfireIX]

Trade is fine but having american civilians aboard that ship during war times is not ok, but I see your point.

Why sail a ship across war infested waters?

I renew my question; what was Britain supposed to do; suspend all imports? Britain was a net food importer; her population would have starved.

also, we froze their assets,

In response to Japan's occupation of French Indochina; should the United States have done nothing?

broke international law

This is debatable. Exactly how do you feel that the United States violated international law? By aiding China?

and japan was furious and retaliated.

No. As I stated before, Japan attacked the United States, the British Commonwealth, and the Netherlands first and foremost because of the oil embargo. The Japanese Army and Navy only had enough oil to keep going for about six months at the time of Pearl Harbor; had Japan not captured the oil fields in the Dutch East Indies and Burma, the war in China would have ground to a halt.

So the american people should be able to do what they want and have the right to travel, but, I don't think war should have been the product of the tragedy that was lusitania. After lusitania, we shouldn't have gone to war.

That may well be, but it doesn't mean the Lusitania was some sort of a set-up.

Japan went to war with the US because roosevelt broke the rules and instigated war with japan. Look what henry stinson said on the matter.

Japan went to war with the US because the US tried to force Japan to end its brutal war of aggression in China. Are you saying that FDR should not have done this?

 

[ronpaulisright]

There is a valuable argument to be made their though.

 

[SpitfireIX]

There is a valuable argument to be made their though.

Are you going to answer the questions I posed in my previous post? And while we're on the subject, are you going to answer the questions I posed in this post?

 

[Richard Masters]

woohoo, I was the first person to vote yes. "Yes" was a little strong for me, but I thought it fit better than no.

It is interesting to me that Paul is such a continuous source of derision around here.

One of his themes, that the US has been led by a bunch of neocon nutjobs into an unnecessary war seems to be pretty much the standard view on that issue, so why such enmity towards Paul?

Some speculation:
1. Some people around here are uncomfortable with his libertarian economic ideas so that even if he's with them on the war they still are most comfortable with just dismissing him because of his economic ideas that they disagree with.

2. Some of his supporters are anti-semitic and some people around here think that the only possible reason he could be against the US policy toward Israel is that he is anti-semitic so some people have concluded he's anti-semitic and they make derisive comments about him for that.

3. Some people around here are uncomfortable with anybody that doesn't share their vision for the American military as a kind of super police force for the middle east so they just dismiss him for that.

4. Mostly the anti-Paul derision is just done to annoy ronpaulisright and doesn't actually reflect the views of the deriders.

5. Paul looks weird and it fun to make fun of somebody just for that reason.

I think what you wrote is pretty accurate.