9/11 or Pearl Harbor?

• jmog

  isadore;1036660 wrote: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.

  You are the one playing the spin game. Never did I create a moral equivalency between the North and South.
  
  I said one was wrong morally, one was wrong constitutionally, and at the time I did NOT try to say which one was worse. So you saying I created a moral equivalency is factually incorrect.
  
  Also, your assertation that the South controlled Congress in the 1850s is factually wrong.
  
  In the 1850s..
  
  Senate
  North-40 seats
  South-22 seats
  
  House
  North-139 seats
  South-61 seats.
  
  So, any more twisting of facts to suit your argument?
• isadore

  In your above statement you put blame equally on South and North.
  and
  Gosh a ruddies who is twisting, what did I write.

  isadore wrote:That all doing the 1850s the government had been dominated by Southern slaveholders and their allies including President Pierce and Buchanan and the Supreme Court.

  
  and if we look at the Congress, in the 1850s there are other slave holding states working to protect Southern interest with Senators and Representatives. Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware plus a large number of pro Southern Northern doughfaces. With the coalition they are able to pass Pro South legislation like the Kansas Nebraska Act that opened new territory for slavery. We also have a Supreme Court with a Southern majority lead by slave owning Roger Taney making the Dred Scott decision that blacks had no rights a white man need respect and opening the door wider for the spread of slavery. You had Pierce and Buchanan, two doughface northerners, who did all they could to appeae the South. Pierce worked for passage of the Kansas Nebraska Act. Buchanan pushed the Supreme Court for the Dred Scott decision. As I wrote a Southern dominated government.
• jmog

  Isadore, never did I put blame equally in the first place, and I DEFINITELY didn't put MORAL blame equally as you said that I did.
  
  You need to read again what was actually said, and I'll await the apology when you understand the English that was typed.
• georgemc80

  After Pearl Harbor we had a known enemy with defined boundaries to defend. Horrific war, but thats why they are the Greatest Generation.
  
  9/11 we had an unknown enemy that blends into our society. The war on terror is more difficult than WW2 because of this. So, 9/11 was worse.
• Scarlet_Buckeye

  

  Steel Valley Football;1034727 wrote:Neither.
  
  answer: the day sleepers mom vag squirted him out

  Ding, ding, ding, ding, DING... we have a winner! [Reps]
• HitsRus

  

  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.

  I won't disagree with that....but the choice was between modern day examples.
• DeadliestWarrior34

  

  Dr.Pizza;1035864 wrote:Inside Job
  <iframe src="" allowfullscreen="" width="560" frameborder="0" height="315"></iframe>

  You need to learn the difference between they're and their.
• thavoice

  I say 9/11 because of what other stated, it was an attack on civilians, PH on the military.
  
  Even in peace time there is that inherant risk for military personnel.
  
  
  As for the nuclear bombs dropped in Japan. Yes, it killed many, many civilians. We have to remember war back then was different than it is today. It killed many, but it also ended the war very quickly. I think it saved lives on both sides after it was all said and done.
  
  
  Also, and I dont think it is just a coincidence, but there hasnt been a 'widespread' and huge war since then and I think some of that goes to the fact that a nuclear bomb was used and the distruction was amazing and newer bombs would only be even more deadlier. There were two world wars within twenty years of each other, but nothing close to resembling it in the last 70. There will always be smaller ones going on but nothing nearly as large, or widespread, as the WW's because, I think, that there is the threat of a nuke if things get too big.
  
  Just my opinion.
• jmog

  thavoice;1036999 wrote: Also, and I dont think it is just a coincidence, but there hasnt been a 'widespread' and huge war since then and I think some of that goes to the fact that a nuclear bomb was used and the distruction was amazing and newer bombs would only be even more deadlier. There were two world wars within twenty years of each other, but nothing close to resembling it in the last 70. There will always be smaller ones going on but nothing nearly as large, or widespread, as the WW's because, I think, that there is the threat of a nuke if things get too big.
  
  Just my opinion.

  No way to prove it, but I have always had this thought in the back of my mind as well.
• Thinthickbigred

  HitsRus;1036845 wrote:I won't disagree with that....but the choice was between modern day examples.

  Then he should have worded it that way . it was presented as the worst day in American history .. There are plenty we can look at.
  
  Besides 1941 was 60 years ago . How far back is modern day . America is not really that old in the scheme of things . We are an infant compared to the French ,Roman ,and German empire as well as England china . The mid east .
• Thinthickbigred

  Some more terrible dates in American history
  
  Trail of tears 1838
  The Dred scott decision 1857
  Internment camps 1942
  
  We Americans sure do preach alot of civil rights but our history is just the opposite .
  We have done countless shameful things as a society and we sit here like we are kings of the planet . the Roman empire fell , and so will we . the English just handed the baton off to us and we went running with world wide injustices . I love my country and Im a vetern but our history is not as gleaming as many think . We have a long way to go before we preach to other countries how to treat there own people.
• believer

  

  Thinthickbigred;1037103 wrote:Some more terrible dates in American history
  
  Trail of tears 1838
  The Dred scott decision 1857
  Internment camps 1942
  
  We Americans sure do preach alot of civil rights but our history is just the opposite .
  We have done countless shameful things as a society and we sit here like we are kings of the planet . the Roman empire fell , and so will we . the English just handed the baton off to us and we went running with world wide injustices . I love my country and Im a vetern but our history is not as gleaming as many think . We have a long way to go before we preach to other countries how to treat there own people.

  Well as a "vetern", you're free to go hang out with the Brits, the Japanese, the Germans, and the Russians. They all did a far better job of staying out of the affairs of other countries.
• HitsRus

  

  Then he should have worded it that way . it was presented as the worst day in American history .. There are plenty we can look at.
  

  He did word it that way... 'Worst day' and then offered 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as choices. If you want to take this thread elsewhere, there is no rule against it. Just sayin'
• friendfromlowry

  Thinthickbigred;1037103 wrote:Some more terrible dates in American history
  
  Trail of tears 1838
  The Dred scott decision 1857
  Internment camps 1942

  Jesus Christ, the original question was worst 'day' not time period, event, date, etc. you fucking moron.
  I'd say the worst day was whenever Justin opened up this shithole.
• isadore

  jmog;1036748 wrote:Isadore, never did I put blame equally in the first place, and I DEFINITELY didn't put MORAL blame equally as you said that I did.
  
  You need to read again what was actually said, and I'll await the apology when you understand the English that was typed.

  <DIR>

  jmog wrote:You also have not read much of the political views of the southern leaders at the time, such as General Lee, if you believe that the south would have continued slavery into even today.
  
  Now, I will say this, the south was 100% morally wrong for having slavery, no doubt about that. However, the north was also wrong for trying to control the south through the federal government.

  </DIR>No matter how you try to deny it, your original statement try to provide to establish a moral equivalence between the North and South. All part of your attempt to diminish Southern blame. You claim that the Southern leaders political views were really opposed to slavery. Hardly.
  Slavery had made the South the wealthiest section of the United States in 1860. Through the later Ante-Bellum era the value of slaves was rising. The slave owners dominated the government and strongly supported chattel slavery.
  "African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."
  ~ Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy
  &#8220;Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations
  are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. &#8220;\-Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy
  Confederate Constitution
  4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
  Overwhelmingly approved by the Confederate state legislature.
  http://www.civilwarhome.com/csaconstitutionbackground.htm
  These are the Confederate leaders and they were strongly supporters of slavery, far from the way you presented them.
  
• dwccrew

  

  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.

  I'm not really comparing what "war" was worse, the question asked what day was worse. And I'll choose a day when unarmed civilians are attacked over military targets that have the means to defend themselves. Both days were horrible, but I think 9/11 was worse because of the fact that innocent, unarmed civilians were the target.
• HitsRus

  

  You must be appalled at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, V-1's and V-2 raining down on London, the carpet bombing of Berlin.
  
  Truth is...War is hell and bombs make no distinction. Americans are Americans to me.
  
  I'll agree to disagree though.
• Thinthickbigred

  friendfromlowry;1037288 wrote:Jesus Christ, the original question was worst 'day' not time period, event, date, etc. you ****ing moron.
  I'd say the worst day was whenever Justin opened up this ****hole.

  I just added my thoughts . i know what he asked . I just think the question itself is not thought out enough . Pearl Harbor and 911 were terrible dates inAmerican history . So was the battle of Antietum as a one day event . I dont have the date right on hand as i dont have the exact date of the begining of the Bataan death march . What are you mad about anyway . How did I offend you?
• Thinthickbigred

  If we are comparing just the two dates as which one was worse then its hands down 911 not even close . But my understanding was he was more or less saying those two dates were the two worst dates in American history and we should choose between the two .
  Again between the two its 911 first of all when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor those pilots were attacking military instalations and they also believed that war had already been declared . When some radical islamists crashed planes as missles to kill inocent civilians for terror and shock purposes it was pure evil.
  Those Japanes pilots have in latter years shook hands with survivors of the Pearl Harbor attack . can you imagine anybody shaking hands with any high ranking taliban 40 years from now that had a hand in the 911 attack .
  History see's those two dates totally differently ...
• Thinthickbigred

  HitsRus;1037786 wrote:You must be appalled at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, V-1's and V-2 raining down on London, the carpet bombing of Berlin.
  
  Truth is...War is hell and bombs make no distinction. Americans are Americans to me.
  
  I'll agree to disagree though.

  You should add the bombing of Dresden Germany . No military instalations were located in that city It served zero military advantage to fire bomb that city and tens of thousands of woman and children were burned to death . the Allies were winners of WWII but we did some atrocities too . its just not in your history books . unless you really dig deep
• Thinthickbigred

  believer;1037135 wrote:Well as a "vetern", you're free to go hang out with the Brits, the Japanese, the Germans, and the Russians. They all did a far better job of staying out of the affairs of other countries.

  Id be glad to hang out with anybody with a different insight . it doesnt make me less of an American to be critical of American policy whether it be today or past .
  Is that not the ideal of what our American society is supposed to represent?.
• HitsRus

  

  ^^^I think you mean insight....incite puts a whole different context to your post.
  
  I'm not sure where this concept of sanitized wars and fighting wars 'morally' came from. Innocents die, are uprooted/displaced, are victims of all sorts of horrors. We, as Americans, are no worse nor better than anyone else. War is terrible...it is horrible...it is meant to be that way... and that is why it is to be avoided.
  Fighting wars with "rules" only lasts as long until someone comes along to break them.
• jmog

  isadore;1037315 wrote:<dir>
  </dir>No matter how you try to deny it, your original statement try to provide to establish a moral equivalence between the North and South. All part of your attempt to diminish Southern blame.

  The fact that you can't understand the English that was used without inserting your own opinions into the meaning, shows you are completely retarded.
• isadore

  jmog;1038125 wrote:The fact that you can't understand the English that was used without inserting your own opinions into the meaning, shows you are completely retarded.

  We mentally challenged try as hard as we can. And even we can tell when someone is trying to create moral equivalency out of whole cloth. Asserting supposed evil Northern abuse of the South in the events leading up to the war and claiming the Southern leaders were really soft on slavery, was not going to be long to they abolished it.
• jmog

  isadore;1038241 wrote:We mentally challenged try as hard as we can. And even we can tell when someone is trying to create moral equivalency out of whole cloth. Asserting supposed evil Northern abuse of the South in the events leading up to the war and claiming the Southern leaders were really soft on slavery, was not going to be long to they abolished it.

  1. You are still wrong.
  2. Please read some of General Lee's writings with regards to slavery. If the South had won the war who do you think would have been their 2nd President? Just like the colonies unanimously elected General Washington, the south would have elected General Lee.
  
  In today's views Lee would look like a racist, but in 1850 Virginia, Lee was as close to an abolitionist as you can find. Heck, the man nearly fought for the North, he only chose to fight for the South because he was more loyal to Virginia as a state than to the country as a whole.