Television is Bad For You

[Aedes]

Just one thing to add --

The RMS Lusitania was a BRITISH ship. It was NOT an American ship.

It was NOT sent to German waters -- it was sunk off the coast of Ireland.

While you're absolutely right that its sinking was used politically (after all only 148 of its 1198 dead were American), it was NOT deliberately sent as a pawn to draw an attack from Germany.

It was a civilian passenger ship. But Germany presumed (probably accurately) that it was carrying military material, and that's why it was targeted.

But this was hardly the straw that broke the camel's back. The Lusitania didn't lead to the US entering WWI any more than the 'Boston Massacre' led to the American Revolution. Read about the Zimmerman telegram -- that was what really did it in the end.

But as you know many major movements and events in history begin with people's attitudes being changed by something. The Boston Massacre changed a lot of attitudes towards the British (with the help of propagandists like Sam Adams). The sinking of the Lusitania changed a lot of attitudes towards Germany (with the help of Wilson and others). And 9/11 was a much bigger event than the 148 American dead on the Lusitania or the 5 or 10 dead in the Boston massacre. Even if there had been no propagandizing of 9/11 at all, it would STILL be the major event in America in the last generation.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Just one thing to add --
The RMS Lusitania was a BRITISH ship. It was NOT an American ship.

True, however it was on it's journey home from America to Europe, Carrying as you said at least 148 American passengers. I however find it strange that the fact that a fellow countrymen dies, people always have to make a show of it. If Germany sunk a Dutch ship I would find it disturbing but would not get polarized by the fact that Dutch people were on the ship, many people however do this strangely enough.

It was NOT sent to German waters -- it was sunk off the coast of Ireland.

It was wartime, German-American people had put out a warning that the ship was liable for destruction, which you can see here. It's the same thing of organizing tourist tours in Baghdad during the American Invasion of Iraq.

While you're absolutely right that its sinking was used politically (after all only 148 of its 1198 dead were American), it was NOT deliberately sent as a pawn to draw an attack from Germany.

War is profitable for many people, the Iraqi war proved my point recently.
The destruction of the RMS Lusitania polarized America against Germany while it could be seen as collateral damage. I wont be sorry for a group of people who voluntarily went into the war zone. It was send into a warzone and without any form of protest, thus deliberately given up for destruction. If i were to organize the tourist tours in Baghdad during the American Invasion of Iraq i would be stopped immediately.

It was a civilian passenger ship. But Germany presumed (probably accurately) that it was carrying military material, and that's why it was targeted.

The Lusitania was carrying ammunition, and it was right for Germany, in war times, to investigate and/or destroy the ship. America would not have done otherwise.

But this was hardly the straw that broke the camel's back. The Lusitania didn't lead to the US entering WWI any more than the 'Boston Massacre' led to the American Revolution. Read about the Zimmerman telegram -- that was what really did it in the end.

It did polarize America, and made the probability of going into war greater. Maybe the Zimmerman telegram was the final straw, but only because of everything that happened before, including, but not limited to the Lusitania. Something like a telegram would not cause war. I however will look into it. Besides there is still controversy about the Lusitania.

But as you know many major movements and events in history begin with people's attitudes being changed by something. The Boston Massacre changed a lot of attitudes towards the British (with the help of propagandists like Sam Adams). The sinking of the Lusitania changed a lot of attitudes towards Germany (with the help of Wilson and others). And 9/11 was a much bigger event than the 148 American dead on the Lusitania or the 5 or 10 dead in the Boston massacre. Even if there had been no propagandizing of 9/11 at all, it would STILL be the major event in America in the last generation.

I'm not stating 9/11 has not been an major event, for it is the first real attack from other countries, or terrorist groups in recent history on American soil. I however find 9/11 to be overused as propaganda and used to push fear upon the American people, as well to polarize America to go to war.

[Didymos Thomas]

Something like a telegram would not cause war.

Unless that telegram is one from Germany trying to convince Mexico to invade the US, so that Mexico could reclaim lands lost in the Mexican-American War.

[Aedes]

Vasska,

With all due respect you tried to make a point using historical facts that you were grossly wrong about, and now that these errors have been pointed out you're still awkwardly trying to find a way to fit your point onto the actual facts. I don't want to dwell on details, but I find your understanding of the historical events to be insufficient to justify the conclusions you draw from them.

At any rate, it's irrelevant whether Germany thought it was justified in sinking the Lusitania -- after all, the American and British blockades of Germany's ports were bar none the deciding factor in the outcome of WWI, so there's nothing particularly surprising about the sinking of the Lusitania -- except that it was a passenger boat. Then again Germany even in WWI showed little regard for civilian lives.

The Lusitania is the exact historical equivalent in WWI that Harpers Ferry was before the Civil War, and that the Boston Massacre was before the American Revolution. If you're not familiar with these events in American History you should read about them. These were all events that were seminal in that attitudes became galvanized towards hostility as a result. These events were used for propaganda, but in the end were merely part of a chain in the mass movement of human attitudes that eventually led to war -- and wars that absolutely would have happened anyway in all three cases. If it hadn't been these events, it would have been something else.

No, the telegram itself didn't cause the war. But it was nearly as good as a declaration of war by Germany. The US was already helping the British / French / Russian cause by 1917, and for Germany to try to get Mexico to invade Texas was the last straw in a string of events that began with (or probably before) the Lusitania.

As for your quote:

I won't be sorry for a group of people who voluntarily went into a war zone.

That's a ridiculous and horrible thing to say. There were 1100 dead British noncombatants on that boat -- and they were going home. Your own country has borne the brunt of enough death among civilian noncombatants that I'd expect more sympathy.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Vasska,

With all due respect you tried to make a point using historical facts that you were grossly wrong about, and now that these errors have been pointed out you're still awkwardly trying to find a way to fit your point onto the actual facts. I don't want to dwell on details, but I find your understanding of the historical events to be insufficient to justify the conclusions you draw from them.

I already acknowledged that my first facts were wrong, however not all of my facts thereafter have been disproved. Anyway we are completely incompatible for we both take a different approach to History, and we can argue about this all the time. You might find me grossly wrong and feel like I'm trying to save my argument, i however do not feel that way, call it ignorance if you want.

At any rate, it's irrelevant whether Germany thought it was justified in sinking the Lusitania -- after all, the American and British blockades of Germany's ports were bar none the deciding factor in the outcome of WWI, so there's nothing particularly surprising about the sinking of the Lusitania -- except that it was a passenger boat. Then again Germany even in WWI showed little regard for civilian lives.

Neither do any other countries in war. Stalin killed many people and America has been murdering in Korea, Vietnam and present day Iraq/Afghanistan.

The Lusitania is the exact historical equivalent in WWI that Harpers Ferry was before the Civil War, and that the Boston Massacre was before the American Revolution. If you're not familiar with these events in American History you should read about them. These were all events that were seminal in that attitudes became galvanized towards hostility as a result. These events were used for propaganda, but in the end were merely part of a chain in the mass movement of human attitudes that eventually led to war -- and wars that absolutely would have happened anyway in all three cases. If it hadn't been these events, it would have been something else.

As you say, attitudes can be changed quickly and efficiently; war is big business for many (powerful) people and downright wanted by them. I'm not saying every event was masterminded by these people, but if something happened why not take advantage of it.

That's a ridiculous and horrible thing to say. There were 1100 dead British noncombatants on that boat -- and they were going home. Your own country has borne the brunt of enough death among civilian noncombatants that I'd expect more sympathy.

Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without. You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone, whether these people were innocent or not does not matter. You would not go into Iraq as a citizen because you know it's dangerous.

You should not see me as a coldblooded or mass murderer as Hitler exposed himself since 1941 till his death in April 1945, for i am not.

You should see me as someone who sees violence and murder, as used in the proper form that is needed to achieve the goal, to be helpful at hand to reshape the way things are, human life can be disposed of if needed in this progress if really needed. I do not agree of the way Hitler or Staling handled this killing by selecting religion or race if you were thinking that.
Whether you agree with this would be another discussion, but as I think you would react you would pity me for such a world view and hope I will turn around someday.

[Didymos Thomas]

Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without. You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone, whether these people were innocent or not does not matter. You would not go into Iraq as a citizen because you know it's dangerous.

So damn the fisherman who fished those European waters, and depended on going into that warzone for survival? Who made their living in that war zone long before war came?

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Vasska

Lets face it; I'm the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed you are the one who supports one without.

How in god's name do you have the first clue what I support?

Furthermore, to blankly say you are "the one who supports a revolution with bloodshed" implies that a bloodless revolution (like for instance the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991) is somehow inferior in principle. Some revolutions are worth the blood that gets spilled, some are not. Just depends what the outcome is. The Maoist revolution in China needlessly killed tens of millions of people.

You would not go into a war zone, and European waters in 1917 were war zone,

Dude, the Lusitania sank in 1915, not 1917. Besides, don't overstate the degree of war in the Atlantic during WWI. The hostilities in the North Atlantic in WWI were trivial compared with WWII, where there was a major engagement between German boats and North Atlantic shipping routes, and the Lusitania sank off the coast of Ireland which was never a theater in the war. In WWI there was just a little bit of sniping here and there by U-boats, tactically and strategically meaningless.

whether these people were innocent or not does not matter

The Geneva conventions seem to think so. Deliberate targeting of noncombatants is a war crime, and even if it wasn't codified as such in 1915 it was certainly regarded that way.

You should not see me as a coldblooded or mass murderer as Hitler exposed himself since 1941 till his death in April 1945, for i am not.

I didn't say you were. Just because you have a view that I find callous and cruel doesn't mean I think you're a genocidaire.

You should see me as someone who sees violence and murder, as used in the proper form that is needed to achieve the goal

You must have a strangely proprietary use of the word "murder", then. Almost everyone will buy that violence is sometimes necessary. But murder never is.

human life can be disposed of if needed in this progress if really needed

How about your life? Or the life of your loved ones? It's easy for you to place strategic and tactical values on a certain quantum of blank faces -- but can you see yourself or your mother that simply and coldly?

but as I think you would react you would pity me for such a world view and hope I will turn around someday.

What I pity is how little empathy you seem to have for the lives of others. Reminds me of a quote by Heinrich Himmler in which he said that he didn't care if 10,000 Russian women fell dead digging a trench for Germany so long as the trench got dug.

[Vasska]

Aedes,

Seen your change of tone I really got on your nerves, Sorry about that. About the issue of what you support; I made that observation from our conversations, sorry I'm not such a good judge of character as I hoped.

The topic seems to have changed from why television is bad, to video games, to world war I and II and shifting towards you finding my knowledge of the war and my world view inappropriate and lacking. I must shamefully admit some of my facts were wrong (The last error was a typo for the record), but my general view has not changed, discussing this on the next 20 pages is noting more than a waste of time for both of us, so I'd suggest we'll stop.

About the revolution; I'm not saying every revolution needs to happen and is needed. But those that happen should be done properly, destruction of the former regime is, in my opinion, needed. If this accounts to murder, than it must be this way.

My as you say it "callous and cruel" world view should be explained in greater depth and apart from this discussion. I'm writing an essay on Eugenics & Ethics in which my opinion stands on other grounds and explains my vision not only on a basis of war. This essay however still is being written and i don't know when I feel it should be ready.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Vasska

About the revolution; I'm not saying every revolution needs to happen and is needed. But those that happen should be done properly, destruction of the former regime is, in my opinion, needed.

Not always. Remember that reuinification and reconstruction is critical after a revolution. One huge (and acknowledged) mistake the Americans have made in Iraq has been to destroy Saddam's regime and army so completely that the huge Sunni minority in the country has felt completely disenfranchised and marginalized; and the existing military and political infrastructure was destroyed as well, meaning it's had to be built from the ground up.

Some historical revolutions have succeeded without destruction of the former regime, too. The English have managed to create a government out of mini-revolutions that through time have decreased the power of monarchy and increased the power of representative government; that's happened without doing what the French or Russians did with their royal families. In the American Civil War, while the revolutionaries (the Confederate States of America) lost, not even their leaders (like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee) suffered much more than losing the right to vote. Davis was imprisoned for a short time, but no one was executed, the Confederate soldiers were all repatriated, etc. Reconstruction was hard enough despite this, but if there had been harsh treatment of the south (beyond what already happened in the war) there would probably have been a generation of guerilla warfare, resistance, and perhaps another open civil war.

If this accounts to murder, than it must be this way.

I think our problem here is the use of the word 'murder' which in general use doesn't simply mean 'homicide' -- it means unjustified or criminal homicide.

[Vasska]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Not always. Remember that reuinification and reconstruction is critical after a revolution. One huge (and acknowledged) mistake the Americans have made in Iraq has been to destroy Saddam's regime and army so completely that the huge Sunni minority in the country has felt completely disenfranchised and marginalized; and the existing military and political infrastructure was destroyed as well, meaning it's had to be built from the ground up.

Ouch, you've got me there. I've said this 2 years ago and somehow forgot about it. Thanks for reminding me of it, and changes my opinion in a somewhat different direction.

Some historical revolutions have succeeded without destruction of the former regime, too. The English have managed to create a government out of mini-revolutions that through time have decreased the power of monarchy and increased the power of representative government; that's happened without doing what the French or Russians did with their royal families. In the American Civil War, while the revolutionaries (the Confederate States of America) lost, not even their leaders (like Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stevens, Robert E. Lee) suffered much more than losing the right to vote. Davis was imprisoned for a short time, but no one was executed, the Confederate soldiers were all repatriated, etc. Reconstruction was hard enough despite this, but if there had been harsh treatment of the south (beyond what already happened in the war) there would probably have been a generation of guerilla warfare, resistance, and perhaps another open civil war.

Saying it like this blows my theory away completely.

I think our problem here is the use of the word 'murder' which in general use doesn't simply mean 'homicide' -- it means unjustified or criminal homicide.

Alright, homicide it is. Did know the word, failed to use it.