Quote:
Originally Posted by jms62
So are you suggesting we jump into another unfunded war before all the facts are known? Would a horrible accident where civilians are killed constitute grounds for going to war? Could it be that you and your ilk are simply using this tragedy to disparage the actions of your rival party whatever those actions are without any regard to the costs of those actions to the country both human and financial? I find this absolutely despicable. While you're at it maybe you should "pray" for a soul for you and those willing to sacrifice our youth based on unconfirmed information from the front lines blaming the enemy for purposely and knowingly shooting down a civilian aircraft.
PS
Good luck at Saratoga today
|
Um - no - not suggesting that at all. I was simply stating that there is precedent for casualties in an attack, prior to which were not part of the hostilities, leading eventually to involvement in a war. I had remembered that history teachers cited "unrestricted submarine warfare" as the cause of our involvment - and the Lusitania sinking the primary event of that rationale.
Having said that, Danzig's post about the Zimmerman telegram makes a much more concrete case, and the Lusitania sinking would be of lesser importance. Apparently my high school history teacher generalized a bit too much.
Independent of all this theory, I would say the opposite - we ought to steer clear of a confrontation with the Russians if we can avoid it.
PS. Good luck to you as well in Saratoga. And everyone else. Wishing our guys many big ticket winners.