9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

• isadore

  I Wear Pants;1035877 wrote:He said however only once in the post I read.
  
  But even saying it thrice I don't think it was an attempt to establish equivalency. It was just noting something that he saw as wrong. Had he said "the north was just as wrong" or "the north was as wrong as"...
  
  Of course you'll argue this to death because you don't understand that people use words in *gasp* different ways then you may have perceived them.

  No matter how you spin it, his was an attempt to raise Northern blame for the war to a level compareable to the South. And that is historically false. There was a right side and a wrong side in the Civil War
• HitsRus

  

  No doubt in my mind Pearl was far worse. I'm not sure why because it was against a military target makes it 'more palatable for some on here. 9/11 knocked down a few buildings and killed 3K people, ...terrible for sure...but it didn't wipe out half the Pacific Fleet and propel us into a MAJOR war that is far beyond what we are putzing around with today. Moreover, today's wars are by our own choosing...of which many of you think is a foolish choice anyway. No such option with Pearl Harbor...we were at war and fighting with a crippled fleet.
• Thread Bomber

  

  It was today......Yet another loss to a SEC school.
• Sonofanump

  As a single day by itself as the question is worded, the answer is 9/11.
• isadore

  Sonofanump;1035977 wrote:As a single day by itself as the question is worded, the answer is 9/11.

  On December 7th besides Pearl Harbor the Japanese attacked Thailand, Malaya, Shanghai, Singapore, Manila.
• Sonofanump

  isadore;1036066 wrote:On December 7th besides Pearl Harbor the Japanese attacked Thailand, Malaya, Shanghai, Singapore, Manila.

  So what does Malaya, Thailand, Shanghai and/or Singapore have to do with American? Now Guam might be relavant to 12/7/1941 for American history.
• isadore

  Sonofanump;1036090 wrote:So what does Malaya, Thailand, Shanghai and/or Singapore have to do with American? Now Guam might be relavant to 12/7/1941 for American history.

  Of course Manila was part of an American commonweath. The totality of the attacks would show a much greater threat on that day to Americans, making it a worse day.
• dwccrew

  

  HitsRus;1035913 wrote:No doubt in my mind Pearl was far worse. I'm not sure why because it was against a military target makes it 'more palatable for some on here. 9/11 knocked down a few buildings and killed 3K people, ...terrible for sure...but it didn't wipe out half the Pacific Fleet and propel us into a MAJOR war that is far beyond what we are putzing around with today. Moreover, today's wars are by our own choosing...of which many of you think is a foolish choice anyway. No such option with Pearl Harbor...we were at war and fighting with a crippled fleet.

  What? Knocked down a few buildings? It brought our banking and economy to a screeching halt for a while, got us involved in the longest and costliest wars in our country's history and has brought fear to our country.
  
  Yeah, Pearl Harbor wiped out half of our Pacific fleet but guess what, because of that we built a bigger and better military. If it wasn't for Pearl, we may not have the military might that we have now.
• HitsRus

  

  What? Knocked down a few buildings? It brought our banking and economy to a screeching halt for a while, got us involved in the longest and costliest wars in our country's history and has brought fear to our country.
  

  WAR (with all respect)...not even close 'young man'. Talk to someone who lived thru both. Albeit, the War on Terror still continues, but it has a long ways to go before it even approximates WWII, in terms of casualties and cost.
  Both events were foisted on an unwary America. While WWII lasted only four years, the cost of the war exceeded 35% of GDP...almost $4.2 trillion dollars(in 2011 dollars)....compared to the TOTAL war on Terror (Iraq and Afghanistan)1.2% of GDP and $1.1 trillion.
  Casualties: WWII 408,000 dead, 671,000 wounded. War on Terror (Iraq and Afghanistan) ..6600 dead, 42,000 wounded.
• Sonofanump

  HitsRus;1036340 wrote:WAR (with all respect)...not even close 'young man'. Talk to someone who lived thru both. Albeit, the War on Terror still continues, but it has a long ways to go before it even approximates WWII, in terms of casualties and cost.
  Both events were foisted on an unwary America. While WWII lasted only four years, the cost of the war exceeded 35% of GDP...almost $4.2 trillion dollars(in 2011 dollars)....compared to the TOTAL war on Terror (Iraq and Afghanistan)1.2% of GDP and $1.1 trillion.
  Casualties: WWII 408,000 dead, 671,000 wounded. War on Terror (Iraq and Afghanistan) ..6600 dead, 42,000 wounded.

  Either way, the question was for a particular date, not the effect on the following years.
• HitsRus

  

  Both dates yielded similar #'s of casualties and damage....but in combination with coordinated attacks elsewhere as other have noted...December 7, 1941 really sucked for the U.S.
• said_aouita

  

  dwccrew;1036147 wrote: It brought our banking and economy to a screeching halt for a while,

  That I question.
  A not so interesting fact. The largest renter in the twin towers on that day was Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter. The companies HQ's for payroll was located in the twin towers.
  Even after the tragedy, all employees still got paid on the 15th. The company had "mirrored" servers located in jersey.
  
  What "screeching halt" do you mean?
• Thinthickbigred

  4cards;1035832 wrote:... Popeye's opened in Youngstown?

  whats wrong you couldnt get any shakedown money? Mr the brothers Bulger
• Thinthickbigred

  believer;1034905 wrote:Eh, while slavery is certainly abhorrent particularly by today's standards, suffice it to say immoral provisions such as the Fugitive Slave Act would have died of natural causes over time.
  
  
  
  I agree. It never should have happened. The Feds should have recognized Constitutional states rights and allowed the southern states to eventually abandon slavery as an economic institution as the Industrial Age naturally forced its obsolescence.
  
  
  
  Tell that to the estimated 20,000,000 civilians who died at the hands of the Japanese during WWII, the victims of Pearl Harbor & the Bataan Death March, etc. Hiroshima was a result of Japanese brutality....period.
  
  
  
  This bound to happen even without U.S. support.

  As far as the feds letting the southern states have the constitutional rights . they still had them and the Emancipation act didnt happen until afgter the war started
• jmog

  isadore;1035731 wrote:That is an unjustified attempt to establish moral equivalency. And since I try to big about these things, you don’t even have to apologize for calling me a jackass

  You must have missed the part in my post just above the quote (you know, the part you purposely left out) that said that the South was 100% morally wrong.
  
  However, Consitutionally the North was wrong for trying to use the Federal Government to control the South.
  
  That is a fact, it was not an attempt to justify anything and you are still a jackass that owes me an apology.
• jmog

  isadore;1035767 wrote:<dir>
  </dir>However, However, However, that is an attempt to establish moral equivalency
  

  You need help with the English language then is all I can say.
• isadore

  jmog;1036590 wrote:You need help with the English language then is all I can say.

  lol
• jmog

  isadore;1035912 wrote:No matter how you spin it, his was an attempt to raise Northern blame for the war to a level compareable to the South. And that is historically false. There was a right side and a wrong side in the Civil War

  This is 100% false. I never said anything completely close to this. The South was 100% on the wrong side morally, which is exactly what I said. Just like the Germans/Japanese were on the wrong side in WWII, Al Qaeda was on the wrong side morally in the war against terror, etc.
  
  That does NOT mean that the North, or the USA in the other examples did NOTHING wrong. I did NOT try to equate the level of indescretions in any way, shape, or form.
  
  If I was alive in the 1850-60s I would have 100% fought for the North to keep the US together and help end slavery because it was wrong. However, that doesn't mean that I would have to believe that everything the North did was Constitutionally "ok".
• isadore

  jmog;1036588 wrote:You must have missed the part in my post just above the quote (you know, the part you purposely left out) that said that the South was 100% morally wrong.
  
  However, Consitutionally the North was wrong for trying to use the Federal Government to control the South.
  
  That is a fact, it was not an attempt to justify anything and you are still a jackass that owes me an apology.

  You try to heap moral blame on the North to raise their level of blame to a comparative level of wrong with the South. And if anyone had used the federal government to dominate it was the South through the 1850s, not the North.
• isadore

  jmog;1036597 wrote:This is 100% false. I never said anything completely close to this. The South was 100% on the wrong side morally, which is exactly what I said. Just like the Germans/Japanese were on the wrong side in WWII, Al Qaeda was on the wrong side morally in the war against terror, etc.
  
  That does NOT mean that the North, or the USA in the other examples did NOTHING wrong. I did NOT try to equate the level of indescretions in any way, shape, or form.
  
  If I was alive in the 1850-60s I would have 100% fought for the North to keep the US together and help end slavery because it was wrong. However, that doesn't mean that I would have to believe that everything the North did was Constitutionally "ok".

  However-"Used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously from the Oxford English Language Dictionary. And that is an attempt at moral equivalency.
• jmog

  isadore;1036610 wrote:However-"Used to introduce a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously from the Oxford English Language Dictionary. And that is an attempt at moral equivalency.

  Contrasts with, as in while the South was 100% wrong morally, the North was not 100% in the right Constitutionally. So yes, I understand the definition of "however", however maybe you do not?
  
  Nothing that was said is even close to making the two equivalent, especially MORALLY equivalent.
  
  You are still wrong and are just digging your hole deeper, let me know when you are ready to apologize.
• jmog

  isadore;1036603 wrote:You try to heap moral blame on the North to raise their level of blame to a comparative level of wrong with the South. And if anyone had used the federal government to dominate it was the South through the 1850s, not the North.

  No I did not put ANY moral blame on the North. I said they were wrong CONSTITUTIONALLY (maybe you will se that this time if I put it in caps?). Also, never did I say that the North's "level of wrong" Constitutionally was even close to the "level of wrong" the South had morally.
  
  So, when do you plan on apologizing?
• Tiernan

  9,000 Americans killed over the three days of July 1 - 3, 1863 and another 40,000 wounded or missing at Gettysburg. Americans killing each other easily trumps Pearl Harbor or 9/11 as the worst day(s) in American History.
• isadore

  jmog wrote:However, the north was also wrong for trying to control the south through the federal government.

  No matter how you try to rationalize, excuse or redefine your original statement it was an attempt at establishing moral equivalency between the two sides.
  South was wrong, HOWEVER( introducing a statement that contrasts with or seems to contradict something that has been said previously-OED) the North was also wrong by their supposed attempt to control the South.
  Now that is an attempt at moral equivalency.
  The South had controlled the country for a decade, not the North.
• isadore

  Tiernan;1036657 wrote:9,000 Americans killed over the three days of July 1 - 3, 1863 and another 40,000 wounded or missing at Gettysburg. Americans killing each other easily trumps Pearl Harbor or 9/11 as the worst day(s) in American History.

  Use Antietam bloodiest day in American history 3650 killed, over 17,000 wounded. More than any day at Gettysburg.