The First World War

But really we shouldn't have joined WWI to begin with.

Why?

We had no reason to. It wasn't like WWII where the Nazi's were evil, we just picked a side and jumped in. It was the first example of a dangerous military-industrial complex in America.

True. True. I would not go as far as saying that we had absolutely no reason to join the war however.

Well what reasons did we have?
Also @Unillogical I'm having trouble quoting people at times.

The

Unrestricted submarine warfare. And you know, we had the Germans sending messages to the Mexicans to tell them to attack us...

The Submarines only attacked Entente ships. Some of those British merchant ships had Americans on them, but you can't expect the government to help you when you associate with belligerents.
And at the time the Zimmerman telegram was sent, Mexico was in a crazy multi-way civil war, like Somalia nowadays kinda, and General Pershing and his forces were already in Mexico chasing around Pancho Villa. They weren't a threat in the slightest. Definitely nothing to go to war over.

But the fact that Germany was trying to get people to go to war against the US is in and of itself a reason.

They wanted Mexico to attack us in the event of an American intervention.

The Jews won of course.

Well, I believe the Germans would have wanted a more Franco-Prussian war esque treaty. I believe the only reason the Allies treated the Central Powers so harshly is because they wanted to take them down a notch. Germany had just proven it could take on Russia, France, England, and Italy at the same time with minimal help from their Austrian and Ottoman allies.

...............

Following that logic then we would all be constantly talking about random religious radical groups, who are much more radical than Karl Marx. The reason Karl Marx is so important and talked about, is because he created two new ideologies, while Adam Smith just built on an already existing ideology to give it the direction it has today. Modern economics is not based entirely off his principles, its simply uses his ideas as a foundation and builds upon them. The father of "modern economics" is arguably whoever started the triangle trade with the colonies.

And that offensive did not include the fresh troops from the Eastern front, and was only pushed back with American troops. Leonard was considering what if the US didn't join. If the US didn't join, then the stalemate (which I'll remind you was well into France) would have continued until the German manpower overcame the French and British troops. Also, you say that the German people were starving, which they were. But you forget two things. One, the Germans would have been able to get a considerable amount of food from the massive tracts of western Russia they had taken. Two, the French and British were starving too, and the British had been starving for even longer.

Also, too Sly and Shaw's debate, the Americans just wanted a chance to test out their new industrial muscles.

The biggest chance for German (not Central Power victory, Germany was the only thin keeping the Central Powers alive) was the first invasion in 1914. The plan was [stupidly] revised to not invade Netherlands (because the Dutch were awesome) and only invade Belgium. If they had invaded The Netherlands along with Belgium, there area of sweeping on the flanks would be bigger and the whole 'Race to the Sea' would never have happened since they were already had their front on the sea.

But Kaiserreich actually would have happened. The whole alternate history of it is based on Germany winning WW1.

Tell that to everyone who considers him the father of modern economics....Also, he lived from 1723-1790. His best work came in the 1770's. Mind you, there were similar ideologies to Adam Smith's, but he practically invented capitalism.

You and a couple other people on these forums are the only people I've ever met in my life, including teachers and other educated adults, who consider him the father of modern economics. So, he lived from 1723 - 1790. What does that matter? The triangle trade (between Europe, Africa, and the American colonies) started in the late 1500's. Now I'm not saying he isn't a very important figure in modern economics and capitalism, but he certainly didn't invent it. Also, just to point something out, I did a quick Google search of Adam Smith and got exactly 4 hits. 4. Four. FOUR. The rest were random congressman and some religious leader.

Oh jesus christ... I know it's stupid to take this kid seriously but I can't let such stupidity continue...

The argument wasn't that "people who are talked about have radical ideas" it was "people with radical ideas are often talked about". Which is true. But that isn't to say he isn't also popular because leftism caught on with some people, it's simply why he is famous as opposed to Adam Smith. For example, everybody knows Malcolm X was radical, but not everybody knows that toward the end of his life, he became peaceful after converting to Islam.

No, his ideas of a liberal economy were fairly radical at the time, and almost completely new, as were most liberal ideas. This was during the liberal enlightenment, in case you have no idea what I'm talking about. Surely you know what the enlightenment is...

What I got from that was "Modern economics isn't aren't based on his ideas, they're just based off of them. Big difference."
Which of course makes you look stupid.

Ho-ly shit. The "triangle trade" which you refer to was Mercantilism, which came before capitalism, but after, or concurrent with feudalism. Basically the government (monarchy) governed the economy and made massive profits through it's control of intercontinental trade. Whereas Adam Smith said people should make their own profits and not be subject to economic control by the government.

There you go with the kid stuff again. Because being a year older than me definitely warrants you saying "kid".

Yes, people with radical ideas are often talked about. I didn't argue that. But saying that's the only reason they are talked about frequently is stupid.

Fair enough. But I didn't say they were not radical. Also, what the hell is the enlightenment? Liberal enlightenment, what the hell are you talking about??? Are you fucking stupid!!!! LIBERAL FUCKIN ENLIGHTMENT??? Of course I know what the enlightenment is....

Then you ignored the key word entirely. Modern economics was not based entirely off his principles, it was just built upon them and mixed with other ideas from the era.

We aren't talking about capitalism right now, we are talking about modern economics. Mercantilism was the start of globalization, which is today's economics.

My apologies, I call everybody "kid". I guess it's just like slang or whatever.

It is.

I'd say it was like 95% Adam Smith, with recent input from people who built on his ideas.

Modern economics are entirely based on capitalism, even "socialist" nations have elements of capitalism! Modern economies look nothing like mercantilism!

Modern Economics is globalization. By the way, according to Kali and you, its ideologically impossible for socialist nations to have elements of capitalism. Finally, modern economics are not mercantilism, you are right. That's because it has been 250 years since the end of mercantilism, and mercantilism has died. But that doesn't mean mercantilism was not the start of globalization, its not like globalization has to be capitalist you know.

This is in the first paragraph in wikipedia...

I almost got you guys back on WW1. My efforts were in vain