• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why the far left is utterly out of their minds.

nefarious_plot said:
It [the Lusitania] was a British Ship taken on Americna supplies.. There was no threat from one U boat
Actually, there is a little more to the story. This was first related to me by my high school history teacher, and his story was confirmed when the Lusitania was rediscovered.

The Lusitania was a British passenger liner. The rules of war in effect at that time (1915) said that passenger liners were strictly off limits but they were also forbidden from hauling any sort of military personnel, equipment or supplies. The Germans claimed that the Lusitania was carrying military gear, and went so far as to advertise the fact in the New York newspapers, saying in effect "US citizens! Don't take this ship! It's carrying military supplies and we're going to sink it!"

The German claim was pooh-poohed by the Woodrow Wilson administration in the US, and by the British government, so American citizens boarded the ship anyway. When the ship came around the south end of Ireland and into the English Channel, it was met by an escort of British warships. Then there was a reported submarine sighting in the area, and the Brit warships ran to port (and safety), leaving the liner alone on the ocean where the German sub nailed it.

Some 1100 passengers died in that incident, which was used by the US yellow press to demonize the Germans. Wilson ignored the uproar, declined to take any action, and even ran for re-election in 1916 on the slogan "He kept us out of war." The German claims were never mentioned in any US history book I read in school.

When the ship was finally recovered (circa 1970), it was discovered that the Germans were right: the hold was filled with tanks, trucks, guns and other military hardware.

It is inconceivable that the ship manifests out of New York could be falsified without the knowledge of the government, so the conclusion is inescapable: Woodrow Wilson was a war criminal responsible for all those deaths. (With the connivance of Winston Churchill, then the equivalent of secretary of the British navy.)
 
nefarious_plot said:
"Originally Posted by Diogenes
Someone who would rather live in slavery or, better yet, have someone else do the fighting, than risk their hide defending their own freedom. In short, the far Left."

Okay First off nobody has fought for American freedom since 1812.

Second I did 4 years Army including 91 Gulf War


Third your not in Iraq.

Fourth I am not afrraid of that joke of military...you are.


I asked you a simple question about you "army service" that you never answerd. If you did serve, you should be able to back up your claim.
 
Woah, woah, woah, woah, hold it. Woodrow Wilson was no criminal. Even if he was, then why wasn't this highly puplicized? where do you get your info.?
 
Last edited:
Argonath said:
Woah, woah, woah, woah, hold it. Woodrow Wilson was no criminal. Even if he was, then why wasn't this highly puplicized? where do you get your info.?
You in the US dont try yourselves for your own crimes. So of course there was nothing in any newspapers.

Either way. The ships sinking was not a military threat to the US. The orginal point of the statement.
 
Argonath said:
Woah, woah, woah, woah, hold it. Woodrow Wilson was no criminal. Even if he was, then why wasn't this highly puplicized? where do you get your info.?

I had not heard that Wilson was personally involved. However, he was misguided and in the end incapacitated by a stroke. His second wife became the defacto president until the end of his term.

What brought to the U.S. into the war was not the sinking of the Lusitania but the intercepted cable from the German ambassador to the Mexican government offering a deal to recover the southern states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California for Mexico. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Otherwise we probably would never have gotten into the war.
 
Gardener said:
As well as innacurate. My own cat, for instance, does what he wants when he wants it, scratches the furniture with absolutely no apology, and pretty much thinks the world revolves around him. He's gotta be libertarian, right?
If he also expects you to provide food and shelter for him in spite of his complete irresponsibility, he's more like the far-Left Democrats.
 
Argonath said:
Woah, woah, woah, woah, hold it. Woodrow Wilson was no criminal. Even if he was, then why wasn't this highly puplicized? where do you get your info.?
News flash! Until relatively recently (1970 or so), politics stopped at the water's edge and the party out of power was the LOYAL opposition. This honorable practice ended with the appearance of a selfish and self-centered generation that only read about WWII in the history books and couldn't be bothered with silly little notions like patriotism.

As I said before, the info came first from one of my high school history teachers in the fifties, and was confirmed by newspaper and magazine accounts at the time the Lusitania was recovered. The Right has always been behind the curve when it comes to descending into the sewer of finger-pointing and blame games played by the Left.
 
um, heh, "blame games by the left"? Yeah, no blaming Bush for spending our surplus, and getting us into a debt of, oh, what is it now. . . . oh, yes, SIX TRILLION DOLLARS!! You don't seem to be persecuting him of any of that. Just persecuting Clinton that he screwed up for getting a b.j., failing to notice that he stopped the ethnical cleansing of Kosovo by Croatia, and giving us a surplus that would end America's debts by 2009, or even sooner. My mom has lived through many an age and scare. The cold war, the Cuban Missle Crisis, The whole "Mutually Assured Destruction" thing, and had NEVER in her life felt safe. When Clinton had been in office for the first three years, she felt like she could live without fear of being decintegrated or melted, or diseased by radiation. She was SAFE. My dad? Same way. My uncle? Same. Aunt? Same. Grandparents? Same. My friends parents? All felt safe with him in office. Pointing out Bush's failures as president isn't a so-called "blame-game", It's a lot like Trivial Persuit. Cold, Hard fact. Harder than a Catholic priest in a playground packed with 4 year olds. Colder than the Antarctic. Truer than any myth or legend or mere ranting. It's fact.
 
Missouri Mule said:
I had not heard that Wilson was personally involved. However, he was misguided and in the end incapacitated by a stroke. His second wife became the defacto president until the end of his term.

What brought to the U.S. into the war was not the sinking of the Lusitania but the intercepted cable from the German ambassador to the Mexican government offering a deal to recover the southern states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California for Mexico. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. Otherwise we probably would never have gotten into the war.
intialy you said it was the luistinia. The mexican thing was sad desperate attempt. Mexico declined and had 12,000 troops on its border before the Zimmermann Telelgram. It wasnt ever a threat. About as lame a reason for war as Iraq, actully.
 
sargasm said:
Well if you've ever been to San Francisco then you would know why an ugly battleship just wouldnt be right. Its one of the most beautiful places in the word and a big hunk of junk metal hugging the coast isnt going to work. San Francisco has a rich enough history of its own, and the people there would never support having something associated with war resting there.

Besides which, the Navy's mothball fleet is sitting in the middle of the bay, where it has been rusting for decades.
 
Elohssa said:
Besides which, the Navy's mothball fleet is sitting in the middle of the bay, where it has been rusting for decades.
Just another example of Americans shunning there own history. Its a small wonder they have no understanding or toleraqnce for other countries. they dont even understand or respect there own.
 
nefarious_plot said:
Just another example of Americans shunning there own history. Its a small wonder they have no understanding or toleraqnce for other countries. they dont even understand or respect there own.

Excuse me, my point was that there is already a large collection of discarded vessels in the bay, and so adding one more won't mess up the beautiful scenery any more than it already is.

Also, while they are rusting, they are hardly ignored. The U.S. Navy/Marine make us of the these vessels for on-ship combat training.

You assume a lot, seeing as how this was my first post here, and you have no basis to judge me by.
 
Elohssa said:
Excuse me, my point was that there is already a large collection of discarded vessels in the bay, and so adding one more won't mess up the beautiful scenery any more than it already is.

Also, while they are rusting, they are hardly ignored. The U.S. Navy/Marine make us of the these vessels for on-ship combat training.

You assume a lot, seeing as how this was my first post here, and you have no basis to judge me by.

You assume I am speaking directly to you. Typical American Narcissim.


If the Ships there at the Naval facility are unkept complain about that. The Iowa would be a Memorial and would not be unkept.
 
nefarious_plot said:
You assume I am speaking directly to you. Typical American Narcissim.


If the Ships there at the Naval facility are unkept complain about that. The Iowa would be a Memorial and would not be unkept.

You quoted my post, so at the very least I would call if fair to say you were speaking of me, if not to me. You have no basis to do this. I am a U.S. citizen, and if you have a problem us as a culture\society, then have at it. Just don't believe you're convincing anyone of anything by generalizing.

I also have no problem with the mothball fleet, or with having the Iowa as a monument. I'm surprised that the city even has the power to stop them. Since they apparently do, then it's their business. Certainly they don't NEED it, but most cities would bend over backwards to get it, becasue they need the tourism it will generate.
 
Elohssa said:
You quoted my post, so at the very least I would call if fair to say you were speaking of me, if not to me. You have no basis to do this. I am a U.S. citizen, and if you have a problem us as a culture\society, then have at it. Just don't believe you're convincing anyone of anything by generalizing.

I also have no problem with the mothball fleet, or with having the Iowa as a monument. I'm surprised that the city even has the power to stop them. Since they apparently do, then it's their business. Certainly they don't NEED it, but most cities would bend over backwards to get it, becasue they need the tourism it will generate.
The problem is as noted in the orginal article, the vote was done out of spite and not clear judgement on its benefits to the community.

Then the responces from people in many cases shun history.
 
Back
Top Bottom