Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Third Party Debate

2010-07-28T03:41:35Z

NickA: /* Third Parties are a Powerhouse for fresh American Politics!! */ My say

{{debate}}
What do you think about third parties and why? Also if you are affiliated with a third party, what is it?

I personally think that third parties are a great alternative to a [[republican]] and [[democratic]](as in the party) world. It makes me angry to hear of people having to choose the lesser of two evils. The whole definition of democracy is the citizens vote for a candidate that best represents them and having the whole "2 party system" is activelt ruining America. People think that if they vote for their actual beliefs that their vote will somehow mean less... a vote is a vote, and never wasted. In fact if a vote is ever wasted its a vote thats casted because the person feels they have to vote for democrat or republican when they dont believe in either. Although my views are more unique than anything else, i am close enough to libertarian that I include myself in them, and would much rather have a libertarian in office than any republican or democrat ever born, with the exception of Jefferson and a select few others. Oh and by libertarian I mean an actual Libertarian not Ron Paul--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 23:12, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

i think that they are good, and that their should be far more than 2 parties, but if you vote for a third party, your basically throwing your vote away, i mean sure you are voting for what you beleive in, but the purpose of your vote is so you can elect someone you want to be president, lets say that the person you wanted to win got 10000 votes, the person you wanted second got 100000, and the person you disliked most got 100001 votes wouldn't you say your vote was wasted?-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 23:57, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

==Third Parties are a Powerhouse for fresh American Politics!!==

Third Parties are great!!! OMG, I can't even begin...Let's look at history and you will see that America's Third Parties have had an enormous influence on political elections, and on public policy since the beginning. Take the actions of the Freemasons and the counter-Anti-Masonic Party during the 1800s, or the Bull Moose Party as a smack in the face for the Republicans back in 1914, or the Prohibition Party during the early Twentieth century in achieving major Constitutional changes, or the enormous Socialist movement in the '30s influencing government intervention, or the growth of the Nazi Party and George Wallace during the 50s and 60s, or the more recent examples of Nader, Perot, and Ron Paul in shaking up the talking points of Dem/GOP candidates, and, in the cases of Nader and Perot, directly shifting support away from a candidate.

Just remember that many Dem/GOP members are willing to twist and alter their positions in many ways to achieve victory and stay popular. Just think of the group-think that happened during the Democratic primaries, when each candidate suddenly announced one by one that they represented change, healthcare, and education like no other person in the room. I was amazed to see that they spent much more time fighting Bush and trying to take on the likely Republican contenders (like Biden did), than really working on a consistent message. The Republicans also shifted to the anti-immigration and social conservative debate, with people like Giuliani flipping on everything form gun control to abortion to gay rights in only a matter of months--just to win over Republicans. Ron Paul, who from the beginning ran as a Third Party candidate, altered the discussion on the Iraq war immediately, and won major support for avoiding the stale "support our troops" mantra. What that did was opened up new ideas and made the party a little lively on the topic.

And I think Perot's influence in 1996 showed a lot of weaknesses in Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush, particularly in small government and preparing for the information age. I feel that right-wing candidates like Pat Buchanan, David Duke, and Tom Tancredo gave a lot of voice to people who felt that their party was leaving them behind. In every race since Reagan, evangelicals have fielded support into many different candidates, hoping for success in Pat Robertson, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, etc. because they have felt left out.

Check Third Party Watch, Ballot Access News, and Politics1.com and you'll see that Third Parties are still active and important as ever in our political process. You might be surprised to see that Obama and McCain are going to be cross-endorsed by other Parties like the Independence, Working Families, Conservative, etc. lines on your ballot this coming November. That means that (in states that allow ballot fusion) McCain can be listed on a Conservative Party line and on the GOP line and you can vote for him based on the political line that you best align with.
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:17, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

I think that Perot's influence in 1992 and 1996 shows that Americans really are open-minded, and really will do what they need to do to avoid scum that the other major parties put out for us. As George Carlin said, the paries create an illusion of choice. Third parties are the way to go. I would much more prefer someone like Mary Ruwart over a Democrat or Republican. [[User:NickA|NickA]] 23:41, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2010-07-28T03:38:36Z

NickA: /* No */ My say

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as "Libertarianism"--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.

::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.

::--

Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Generally speaking, "liberal" censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''
:The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.
:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

There are many, many things that the world would be better off if they could be banned. Islam, for a start, and all other religions that damn people to hell (like Christianity). Liberal propaganda. Texts defending the right to sodomy or trying to normalise it. Attacks on the family. Anti-christian materials. Pornography. Occultism. Darwinism, and other pseudosciences that destroy God. I would be happy to see all of those banned. However, there is no earthly authority that I would trust to write or to enforce the list of banned materials - there is too much potential for corruption, and without such an authority there is no option but to allow everything. This is why the first ammendment exists - of course the founders knew there were many things that should be banned, but they also realised that government cannot be trusted to do this. Better to just put up with this cultural pollution and to fight it where possible than to risk creating a position with the power to ban the bible and hoping it's only ever occupied by good people. All we can do as Christians is fight to silence and surpress unholy speech and those who continue to make it on a case-by-case basis, to keep it as quiet as possible. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

You really come off as a fascist, ya know.

There is nothing wrong with seeing or hearing a viewpoint that conflicts with your own. If nothing else, it is a mental exercise to see if you have a) the faith you proclaim to have (if you're religious) or b) evidence for your religion/theory/assertion. The only reason to ban anything is if it conflicts with a law. I would like to direct your attention to the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."
If a person wishes not to see something in the library, all she or he has to do is not look at it. Same with the internet, but that's a different argument.
There are a few reasons people want to see things banned. One is that it reveals a deep flaw in their reasoning, but nobody will admit that. A second reason is that they think people shouldn't see that idea or viewpoint, which, for children, makes sense (we do have age restrictions on items such as porn). For adults, however, it doesn't make that much sense. If they are going to be functioning adults, they should develop maturity and strength in their beliefs (even if that belief is the lack of a belief system), enough strength to encounter these things and realize that they either "have a point, but I don't agree with that," "they don't have a valid point, and I don't agree with that," or "they have a valid point, let me check it out and go deeper into my own belief system to figure out what's going on" [[User:Pwulf|Pwulf]]

If we were to allow such a terrible thing to happen, we're another step closer to a 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 scenario. Without books, without concrete literature to sway and form our perspectives on life, we would easily be strayed to blind following. WE should be exposed to disgusting, terrible and downright awful things on a daily basis if it does nothing more than strengthens our convictions. If we read these things and thus find them interesting or agreeable, is it bad? No, "good" and "bad" books alike have swayed people to do crazy things. We just need to maintain a clear perspective at all times and don't become too radical. Taking the choice away from someone is downright irresponsible and morally corrupt. [[User:smokeandmirrors|smokeandmirrors]]

- No! First of all, that violate the 1st Amendment. It's been done for a loooong time, but that doesn't matter, because it's still wrong. Two, censorship is a liberal idea, and liberals have, for the most part, bad ideas!!! Three, who cares? If you don't like a certain book, then don't read it. Other people may want to, so stop being a control freak. [[User:NickA|NickA]] 23:38, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

==Yes==

I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam
:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
::Crime has steadily fallen in the UK for a couple of decades, it is linked more to prosperity rather than reading material [[User:MrVipond]]
Alll books should be banned that do not includes god
:Dear Mr. Khumeni (I assume that's who wrote the proceeding comment), please contact me for a list of books that do not mention God, but may just strech your mind, increase your moral sensitivites and make you a better person, and a better Christian. Sincerely, Parcival
:You are very biased and are likely to offend people. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Offend.]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:33, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Just a comment to the "Harry Potter and the Occult Influence" above - the kind of "magick" which the Bible forbids is specifically sorcery, i.e., summoning the dead, demons, or demons masquerading as angels. This type of magic, when it even appears in the HP books, is specifically denounced as evil, and infact the kind of magic used is much more in line with Moses' miracles, or a "God-given talent" - there is no pact with the devil, just what you were born with. Rowling goes further than that, and in fact a major theme of the books is that Love (which, as we all know, IS God, and God IS Love) is the highest form of magic, the most powerful force in the Harry Potter universe.
::Also - the Bible also has many instances of verbal attacks being allowed, so long as it is constructive in intent. The same goes with physical attacks. If anything, a conservative should be more worried about the increasingly-large "Nanny State/Big Brother" that "progressivism" inculculates, than in which books might allegedly encourage minors to ill. Looking into history, we can see that large-scale censorship is always allied with the most "progressive" and "socialist" regimes - and that the capitalist, conservative view should always rest on absolute freedom of speech (not acts, which can infringe on others rights).[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] 05:51, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I must confess I am in conflict with my church's position on this one. I think censorship should be applied similar to the way we apply hatespeech. A book shouldnt be censored for merely mentioning or describing immoral or ungodly things. Rather it should be banned for inciting people to do such things. Thus Harry Potter shouldn't be banned but a book on "how to cast spells" should be.[[user:DamianJohn]]

You could argue that since the bible says "do not bear false witness" (paraphrased somewhat) that ANY FICTION is contrary to Gods will and therefore should be untouched by any true Christian. Following this reasoning though a library could contain ANY book, and a moral person would simply leave it unread, or stop reading as soon as its nature was determined. Parents should supervise their children though, so Sex manuals in a library would not bother me , since my children would not have access to them . [[User:Markr|Markr]] 20:23, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Libraries have and already do censor books becuase there have been many times where i went to local library and i was unable to find what i was looking for becuase it was to conserative.

==No, no, no, no...no.==
Tell me, what does censorship accomplish? It takes away someone's access to information. Now that is done, all that is left is one side. One sided information creates drones. People who are the same. Now, if everyone were the same, we couldn't really have progress. Here are some examples of people who have been labeled different, people with new ideas, that were considered bad. MLK, Galileo Galilei, and Jesus. -[[User:Nono|Nono]] 16:21, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

No idea in and of itself, has ever caused harm. It is how a person uses that idea that causes harm. Reading something opens your mind to possibilities. it is the choice of the path you take that defines who you are, what you are.--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:31, 11 November 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==Yes!==

Censorship indeed takes away someone's access to information, but as long as the side that's left is the side that's good, then it should definitely be enacted, even if only to prevent children from getting at evil books like The Catcher in The Rye, and LaVey's Satanic Bible. Censorship limits thought, but if you take that stance, then prosecuting criminals limits their freedoms. Censorship should be used as a proactive criminal justice system, taking the ideas of Naked Lunch and others like it out of people's heads for good. -[[user:Honomo|Honomo]] 21:27, 9 October 2008

:Really? The side that's left is the side that's good? Good? Now I can hardly believe that you would say something like that? Who are you to judge what is good and what isn't. Ecclesiastes 12:14:
"For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil" God will judge, certainly not you. Do not start to believe that you can decide what is right and what is wrong. You can have an opinion about it, a belief, a hope, but you can certainly not know. And every time you ban a book, a movie, a word or a thought, you take undue power into your hands. You may believe that something is wrong, but let your children and your friends decide for themselves. Book banning is the reason why people are afraid of faith. Never hide science, or injury or madness, it's the only to understand the world that surrounds us. And if you trust your faith in God, if you truly trust it, you would certainly be unafraid of "Catcher in the Rye".
And how about a suggestion: read it, just to see what it does to you, before attacking it without thought.

==No==

We should not seek to censorship books, because they represent the entirety of human knowledge. If we were to begin widespread censorship, then we would be travelling down a very slippery slope. Just as we cannot and should not deny events such as the Holocaust existed, we should not disclude ourselves from realising that other viewpoints exist than our own in this world. How can anybody possibly be allowed to distinguish for themselves what is right and wrong without having seen both sides? [[User:Masterofhisdomain|Masterofhisdomain]] 16:36, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Totalitarianism==

When you attempt to use the government to censor what is wrong, you are effectively shoving your morals down the throats of other people. Not even Christian thought condones such methods. If you want people to do what is right, then you need to lead by example, not keep anyone from knowing horrors.

And not only that but when you attempt to censor information through the government, you certainly are no better than any totalitarian dictatorship, because you are taking people's ability to choose away. It is up to each individual person whether to do wrong or to do what is right or just, and without that all you have is lack of responsibility.

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to censor in your own home with your own family. No one has the right to tell you that you cannot discipline your kids for doing wrong. [[User:ARX3000|ARX3000]] 09:39, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

If we are to ban books all the books you may try to eliminate who have backing may come back and attack your books.would you want the same thing done to your Bible by Liberals who think that the book takes away from learning? I personally want to walk into the library and look at a book on sexual performance or paganism so i can learn about it. If you want to ban books lets start with the bible and then see how everyone feels about that. Its a free country.

Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?

2010-07-28T03:34:35Z

NickA: My say

{{debate}}

It's been a very long time, he isn't a threat to us, do we really need to keep this going on. Cuba doesn't do so well because of our embargo, the only people that suffer are the average citizens, Isn't it time for it to end?

I'd like your thoughts for either side of this debate -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

If the embargo were lifted it would have the beneficial effect of bringing Cuba in to the mainstream. The U.S and Cuba are like two neighbours who won't talk too each other, the U.S could improve relations by making such a positive gesture. North Korea a is case in point, the World Community began to provide aid to the country, and thus North Korea became open enough to listen to the U.S and abandon its nuclear programme. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 11:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I believe anybody who still uses repression as a legitimate tactic of goverance should be shunned by the humanitarian international community. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 11:59, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

::What about China? Who advocates shunning China? What about Gitmo? The international community seems to be shunning the U.S somewhat, judging by the country's popularity[[User:Angband|Angband]] 12:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Sometimes the good guys lose the plot. Such as the US after 9/11. Gitmo is the greatest travesty of justice in the US since the incarceration of the Japanese Americans during WWII. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:02, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it is true that Gitmo is a shameful stain. The point I was making was that it is not fair on Cuba with all this happening. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I actually don't understand why conservatives support an embargo that hasn't worked for 40 years. It violates free market principles. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:51, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

oppressing an entire people and not allowing freedom violates free market principles. And the embargo certainly has worked; It has prevented Cuba from becoming a threat to the US during the Cold War. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

------------
Abishua:
I agree completely, it is an idiotic and annoying to see that we continue to shun Cuba, with no real reason to keep them out of the mix. Although I doubt this will happen until a new president comes into office for a few reasons. The first reason is that he has almost no time to open relations up with Cuba again, so the chances are slim. On top of that, he decided it was time to shake the cage with Cuba and say we wouldn't let communism to stay in power in Cuba, and would stop the transfer of power from Castro to his brother. (Sorry I can't quote the article that I remember reading this.) It may have helped in the Cold War, but now it can only benefit us. If you watched Sicko (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/), you may want to check the scene where they go to Cuba to get health care. Maybe we could learn a thing or two from Cuba about fixing our broken health care system.

TL;DR version (To Long; Didn't Read) No reason not to open up to Cuba, and we can only benefit from it now.
==Humanitarian==
LeanignRight, why should the average Joe Cuba suffer because of the actions of the government? As far as Human Rights, did anyone forget Saudi Arabia? -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 18:53, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

Saudi Arabia is unfortunate but unfortunately realpolitik has to play some role. Cuba, as a communist nation and at the foot of the US was always going to be a threat during the Cold War. It was important to keep it weak. However, since many other countries who are probably even worse than Cuba aren't sanctioned, maybe their is a fair argument to life the sanction. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Lets face the fact. the US military will never help spread freedom as much as Americas greatest weapon... consumerism and even better instead of paying to invade countries this way they pay us. please note im not being sarcastic -craig101

Cuba is of no threat to America, and face it - the US needs the revenue from Cuban products. It would have beneficial effects on both parties, and I say we lift it. [[User:NickA|NickA]] 23:34, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

==Fight Communism with Capitalism==
[[China]] has the fastest growing economy in the world because they trade with [[us]]. If we opened trade with [[Cuba]] they'd get a really strong economy also. [[User:Kajillion|Kajillion]] 12:44, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?

2010-07-28T03:32:36Z

NickA: My say

==Panama, Sure!==
What shouldn't have been allowed to happen was the transferring of control of both entrances to a Chinese company that is under direct control of communist China. Talk about dirty little deals. I'm sure history will prove it to be one of the dumbest strategic moves by the USA.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:46, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Defiantly, the Panama Canal is in Panama. It would have been modern day colonialism if the United States continued to control the Panama Canal.
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

The Panama Canal is nowhere near the contiguous US, right? Seems to me a little bit like colonialism to have one country rule over a bit of land nowhere near their cultural homeland. BTW John McCain was born in a US army base in Panama, but the "liberal media" didn't mention that once, you psychopathic birthers. VCS777.

===No===
The US spent a LOT of time and cash on the canal, plus it gave us tons of revenue from trade and shipping. As Ronald Reagan said in 1976, we built it, so we should keep it. [[User:NickA|NickA]] 23:32, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

User:NickA

2010-07-28T03:30:40Z

NickA: About me

Hello! I love Conservapedia and wish to expand and share my knowledge here!

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2010-07-28T03:30:11Z

NickA: Username

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

Yes. Three major factors could contribute to this. One being that our allies were about to fall to the seemingly unstoppable German war machine. Two, the Germans and their allies were sinking ships carrying American citizens. We had every right in the world to go forward and protect not only our allies, but our own citizens. Three, we were experiencing a slump in our economy and needed something to drive the prices back up.
--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Goose a few thoughts. 1. Generally a nation isn't consitered an "ally" until, say, a treaty is signed. France, Russia and England were not our allies before 1917. 2. Unrestricted German submarine warfare is a legitamate reason to go to war. 3. You have found a great economic principle. When your economy is slumping, nothing like a short victorious war to drive those prices back up. Goose, your arguments frighten me.
Kdude, if that is your real name, I sure haven't heard any indication that the Mexican government was A: capable or B: crazy enough to declare war on us. They were embroiled in a brutal civil war at the time and utterly incapable of posing a credible threat to us AND THEY KNEW IT. (Come to think of it, we invaded them during WWI hunting for Pancho Via, so they would have been justified in declaring war, but that's another issue.)
Sincerely, Parcival

Yes. Another reason not listed above is that in early 1917, Germany's foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, sent a coded telegram to Germany's ambassador to Mexico promised that if Mexico declared war on the United States, Germany would help give back Mexico the territories it lost (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, also known as the Mexico Cession) in the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War.
--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 16:54, 17 March 2007

==='''no...'''===

Because the Americans brought the so called 'Spanish flu' with them and that fearful disease managed to kill off nearly 20 million mostly young European citizens far more than were actually killed by the war. Of course it wasn't in any way meant. If the American soldiers had not been crowded together in their vast training camps perhaps the virus would not have developed and the many Americans who died from this pandemic would also have been saved.

If the Europeans would have settled their issues on there own, there would have been a tie in the end, or maybe Austria/Germany would have won. In that case Hitler would not have arisen and WWII would never have occured, many Eastern European countries wouldn't have suffered communism.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler wouldn't have risen to power in Germany had it not been forced to pay war reparations as declared in the Treaty of Versailles. Woodrow Wilson didn't want to punish Germany as harshly as our allies did but no one really listened to Wilson. This is an example of Europeans settling their issues on their own which in turn caused WWII. Also, another example Europeans settling their issues on their own is when The Black Hand assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand which started WWI. So clearly your argument about letting Europeans settling their issues on their own is faulty.--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 22:12, 22 March 2007

::Kdude, you need read more closely what I wrote. My point is that Germany wouldn't have lost the war if the United States wouldn't have supported UK and France. So there would have been no need for reparations, ergo: no Hitler!--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 12:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

There was no reason for America to interfere. THis was just a case of Russian imperialism in the Balkans and xenophobia towards Germany. Germany's creation in 1871 and subsequent rise to power alarmed many of the old school Metternich balance-of-power European political strategists. Germany's military buildup was not out of aggression, but rather out of Wilhelm's fear of war by way of aggression from Russia. His fear was justified. America's excuse for entering the war - Germany's sinking of ships was ridiculous. Americans were warned that ships entering the war zone around Britain took the risk of being sunk. Also the Lusitania was carrying weapons aboard bound for Britain. The Germans had to sink it. Everyone needs to get over this phobia of Germany. In this war, they were the good guys. [[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:So can we conclude the Wilson administration, illegally arming Britain like in the [[Lusitania]] incident, was akin to the Reagan administration illegally arming the [[Contras]] in the 1980s, only in the Lusitania incident American lives, including that of children and infants, were being used a hostages to insure safety of passage for the illegal contraband? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I mostly think we should of stayed because of what could have been avoided. If Germany had won Hitler would have remained a painter instead of trying to take over Europe. This would be because Germany would not have gone into a depression where they would look for any kind of change. The British and the French would not have divided up the Ottaman empire for their own means. Three Ottoman provinces were combined to form modern day Iraq leading to three groups who hate each other. This could have all been avoided if the U.S whose arrival turned the tide of the war would have stayed out. CARNESJW

:Ya but if [[Xerxes]] would've lost at [[Thermopylae]] what you just outlined may have been a different story, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Germany would have won "but for" the U.S. The entry of the U.S. into tht war, in my estimation was just the last nail in the coffin for the Kaiser. We may have accelerated the end of the war, but Germany didn't have the resources to pull it out. They might, however, have been able to stretch the war out long enough to force a settlement on better terms than they did, this (possibly) preventing the rise of Hitler (though virulent anti-Semitism and an oddly powerful sense of cultural superiority was rampant in Germany for a long time before the Nazis, who merely seized on them, so who knows whether a better settlement would really have prevented the rise of Nazism). [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

- No, because the Germans attacked Britain. Americans died on the Lucitania, but the Germans were targeting the UK and not the US. At that time, the US was weak but Britain could easily have defended itself with no American help whatsoever. American involvement in WWI was just a waste of lives. [[User:NickA|NickA]] 23:30, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2010-07-28T03:29:42Z

NickA: My say