Military Aggression and the United States (split from Random Thoughts 2)

[BenitoChavez]

This is bad logic. I don't disagree that the British were technically the "aggressors" in the War of 1812, but let's apply this logic to another conflict in history: World War II. See, if the Polish hadn't held on to German territory illegitimately conquered and taken away during World War I, then Germany wouldn't have invaded Poland, therefore Poland was the aggressor.

See the problem?

That's not really how Commodore's argument would apply to WWII. His criteria for who started the War of 1812 was "Would the US still have declared war on Britain if the British were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?". Apply this to WWII and it would be "Would France & Great Britain still have declared war on Germany if the Germans were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?". Germany invading Poland was the direct cause of France & GB's declaration of war, therefore Germany is the aggressor.

The problem with his argument is that the country who declares war is never at fault. It's always the country that gets war declared on who gets the blame, which doesn't seem right.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not really how Commodore's argument would apply to WWII. His criteria for who started the War of 1812 was "Would the US still have declared war on Britain if the British were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?". Apply this to WWII and it would be "Would France & Great Britain still have declared war on Germany if the Germans were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?". Germany invading Poland was the direct cause of France & GB's declaration of war, therefore Germany is the aggressor.

The problem with his argument is that the country who declares war is never at fault. It's always the country that gets war declared on who gets the blame, which doesn't seem right.

If the USSR hadn't had the temerity to exist, Germany would never have attacked it without a declaration of war

 

[Traitorfish]

It's not like the Europeans were picking on anyone their own size during that time period either, though. And you left out the chief foe the US defeated in the 19th century: the Confederacy.

Fighting a war against yourself is cheating, even if it did have the useful side-effect of producing some top-class #beardspiration.

 

[Lexicus]

Fighting a war against yourself is cheating, even if it did have the useful side-effect of producing some top-class #beardspiration.

"I say, I say, I resemble that remark"

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a constant source of pain to me that the Confederacy, while indisputably on the wrong side of God and history, had far and away the superior facial hair.

You can almost see how they might convince themselves that they were in the right, when you compare the luxurious man-mane of James Longstreet to whatever the hell is happening to Ambrose Burnside.

 

[Lexicus]

the luxurious man-mane of James Longstreet

"So much of my authority is derived from the power right here" *motions to beard*
-James Longstreet, July 18 1864

 

[Takhisis]

That's not really how Commodore's argument would apply to WWII. His criteria for who started the War of 1812 was "Would the US still have declared war on Britain if the British were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?". Apply this to WWII and it would be "Would France & Great Britain still have declared war on Germany if the Germans were not doing what they were doing in the lead up to the war?". Germany invading Poland was the direct cause of France & GB's declaration of war, therefore Germany is the aggressor.

The problem with his argument is that the country who declares war is never at fault. It's always the country that gets war declared on who gets the blame, which doesn't seem right.

And yet the British and French never declared war on the USSR, did they? It's more about finding a legitimate casus belli than anything else.

 

[Commodore]

See the problem?

It's only a problem if you automatically assume that being the aggressor is always a bad thing. Sometimes the right thing to do is to start a war in order to stop a threat before it has a chance to gain momentum.

If you read the rest of the post you quoted, you'll see how I applied that logic to WWII. Using my logic, it becomes clear that the US was the aggressor against Japan, but that does not mean the US was wrong to provoke Japan into starting a war.

 

[Lexicus]

It's only a problem if you automatically assume that being the aggressor is always a bad thing. Sometimes the right thing to do is to start a war in order to stop a threat before it has a chance to gain momentum.

If you read the rest of the post you quoted, you'll see how I applied that logic to WWII. Using my logic, it becomes clear that the US was the aggressor against Japan, but that does not mean the US was wrong to provoke Japan into starting a war.

So, your position is that Poland provoked Germany into a war and was right to do so?

 

[Commodore]

So, your position is that Poland provoked Germany into a war and was right to do so?

No because Poland did nothing to provoke Germany into an attack. Germany signed their rights to that territory away in order to make peace at the end of WWI, so they lost all claim to that land. Therefore Germany's attack on Poland made them the aggressor.

 

[Lexicus]

No because Poland did nothing to provoke Germany into an attack. Germany signed their rights to that territory away in order to make peace at the end of WWI, so they lost all claim to that land. Therefore Germany's attack on Poland made them the aggressor.

Germany signed that treaty under duress. There's no way to claim it was a legitimate agreement.

 

[sophie]

Germany signed that treaty under duress. There's no way to claim it was a legitimate agreement.

Also an Alford plea

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Nuts, you spent the entire nineteenth century picking on Native tribes and sad little Latin republics, while the Europeans gobbled up three-quarters of the Earths surface. When you eventually worked up the nerve to go up against one of them, it was Spain.

Spain.

To be fair Spain had it coming in the colonial period. Though it shouldn't be USA pointing fingers, it's not surprising that two nations that treated native populations in bad faith, sometimes egregiously, would ultimately see a little conflict over the gains.

 

[Commodore]

Germany signed that treaty under duress. There's no way to claim it was a legitimate agreement.

I never did like the "under duress" argument. I've always held that no one can truly force anyone else to do anything and that as long as you are willing to accept the consequences, you are free to do anything you want in this world. So Germany could have wiped their backsides with that treaty if they didn't like it. Of course, that would mean hostilities would resume and Germany would have been conquered. Still though, the choice was ultimately theirs to make and they chose to sign the treaty.

 

[Lexicus]

I never did like the "under duress" argument. I've always held that no one can truly force anyone else to do anything and that as long as you are willing to accept the consequences, you are free to do anything you want in this world. So Germany could have wiped their backsides with that treaty if they didn't like it. Of course, that would mean hostilities would resume and Germany would have been conquered. Still though, the choice was ultimately theirs to make and they chose to sign the treaty.

I'm sure you would apply this logic if I held your children at gunpoint and threatened to kill them unless you vote the straight Democratic ticket this November.

 

[Commodore]

I'm sure you would apply this logic if I held your children at gunpoint and threatened to kill them unless you vote the straight Democratic ticket this November.

I thought you were against gun ownership?

 

[Arakhor]

I thought that you of all people would justify terrible things done in the name of a higher calling.

 

[Commodore]

I thought that you of all people would justify terrible things done in the name of a higher calling.

That assumes voting Democrat is a higher calling.

 

[Arakhor]

In the context of the hypothetical, it certainly seems to be.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Freedom is letting your children die at gunpoint to trigger the libs.