9-11 and Pearl Harbor, Strange Perspective

Charpress · 11-18-2009, 05:40 PM

I was watching a WWII series last night about Pearl Harbor.

2,403 people were killed at Pearl Harbor (not counting 55 Japs). That hit me right between the eyes. On the other hand....

2,976 people were killed on 9-11 (not counting 19 friggin' terrorists).

As I recall, America made rather a big deal out of Pearl Harbor. I wasn't around, but I have seen newsreels and remember listening to relatives mention something about it. Apparently it remained a big deal for quite some time.

9-11, on the other hand, seems to have been a big deal for a short while, until members of Congress and the current administration started trying to distance themselves from the whole thing.

Imagine if the same group of spineless politicians were around in 1941. In a few short years they would have been talking about how we pushed the poor Japs into the war by blockading their oil and insisting they stop their genocide in China. Battleship Arizona memorial? Never would have happened.

Oh, and we would have lost the war.

Robert Barney · 11-18-2009, 06:28 PM

I think the difference is that the Japanese attacked our military bases with their military which made it is an act of war. By contrast, 9/11 was just a bunch of civilians, using civilian airplanes, to kill a bunch of civilians in a civilian building. The whole thing was just so - civil. That's why it's just average, everyday murder which you bring to trial in a civilian court.

I mean, compared to the number of Americans killed every year by automobiles, 9/11 was just not that big a deal.

Charpress · 11-19-2009, 10:59 AM

I would call the Pentagon a military target, but anyway.

The larger question is this: when the inevitable BIG attack comes and a city or cities become uninhabitable for whatever half-life applies, will we go back to taking it seriously again? Will we go ape at first and then settle back down to doing nothing but harass old ladies at airports?

If a city is essentially wiped out, will it be a criminal act or will it be war? Bringing down a pair of buildings was nearly economic ruin for us. How about a whole city? How about 2 or 3 cities?

By the way, I don't think I would agree that the 19 terrorists were civilians. I think it is clear they believed they were at war with us. At the time, we agreed. Now we don't.

Whether you believe as a government that something is war or a criminal act is essentially just a matter of scale. If it is a criminal act, it is not regarded as worthy of any serious effort. If it is war, then it is worthy of tremendous effort.

Suppose Hasan had been supplied a dirty bomb through the channels he was trying to open. Is there any doubt he would have believed that killing 20,000 would be more glorious than just 13? How many Hasans are out there? The current administration has turned this into something petty and merely part and parcel of all the wrongs of the prior administration. Making this a political pay-back thing will end up being the undoing of us.

healthagent · 11-19-2009, 11:10 AM

Let me tell you what the difference is; the media. The Viet Nam war was the first time Americans got a chance to actually "see" war.

It would have been interesting to see what support for WWII would have looked like with everyone and their brother uploading video footage on every aspect of the war.

BTW, can you even imagine a war like WWII in today's technology and media?

Headline on June 2nd:

THEY TRIED TO KEEP IT SECRET! MASSIVE ALLIED ATTACK SET FOR JUNE 6TH!

American and allied serviceman have been Twittering and Blogging about landing on Normandy despite formal Amy release stating an attack on a different location.

The AP has contacted the German military for their reaction to the rouse.

atlantainsguy · 11-19-2009, 11:51 AM

Charpress -- You make some excellent observations and comparisons.

Personally, I don't think this is a "military" vs. "civilian" issue. An attack is an attack is an attack.

I believe the problem is that the Bush regime put full emphasis on Iraq where it didn't belong, and not on Afghanistan where it did belong. This caused us to totally lose focus of the real culprits. We are only now getting our focus in proper perspective -- but unfortunately it's 8 years too late. If we'd carpet bombed eastern Afghanistan and parts of the Pakistan tribal areas in late 2001, or turned that part of the planet into a glass parking lot -- it would have been case closed soon after 9/11.

Duping the American public into going after Sadam as the "bad guy" totally sidetracked our efforts from the get-go. As our involvement in Iraq deepened and the years went by, most people simply lost interest.

After Pearl Harbor the focus was on Japan, where it belonged. At least FDR didn't have "political correctness" to worry about.

Atlantainsguy

Winter · 11-19-2009, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by atlantainsguy

I believe the problem is that the Bush regime put full emphasis on Iraq where it didn't belong, and not on Afghanistan where it did belong. This caused us to totally lose focus of the real culprits. We are only now getting our focus in proper perspective --

Atlantainsguy

But what is that aforementioned focus? People say that we neglected Afghansitan and did not send enough troops. However, the former commander in Afghanistan (now Ambassador) says troops are not the answer and that it would only hurt the effort to send more. This is in direct contradiction to McCrystal (also appointed by Obama) who wants more troops pronto. And then their is Commander in Chief Obama who is talking about sending more troops but committed to withdrawal as part of the campaign.

Whatever mess Bush allegedly did or did not maek, Obama campaigned on he idea that he knew the way forward even though his opponents said he was an inexperienced twit. His retort was to say that he consulted daily with the best military minds available and they were supporting him.

Now he has been elected for almost a year and says he still needs to think about it and his followers just repeat the George Bush mantra.

He is confused. He is a confused Commander in Chief. Just as with health reform.. He has no bill of his own even though it is the centerpiece of his agenda but says that he will watch the House and Senate and let you know if he sees anything good that he can sign.

Nice try with the George Bush thing but President Obama should take all the time he wants. Take another six months or two years if he wants because it is his war now and he can answer not only to the public but to the troops and to his base. How about that bit where he was going to get all the Europeans to pony up with more troops. They are pulling out.

Change you can believe in.

Robert Barney · 11-19-2009, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by Charpress

I would call the Pentagon a military target, but anyway.

Yeah, and I was making a bad joke.

Of course it was an act of war. Geeeeeeeee.

Having a civilian trial in New York is such a horrible idea it makes me sick and I have complete and total contempt for Holder because of it, and Obama for not firing his sorry butt. Graham, a waffling liberal Republican, made Holder look like an idiot when Holder couldn't see two plain and contradictory legal positions were on a collision course. And when two legal positions are on a collision course, the perps get off.

The message Obama is sending, by needing to "think about it", is that he is soft. When you send an "I'm soft and can be pushed around" message, you are going to get pushed around and Americans are going to die.

But for some of you, that's just the price of being nice.

Charpress · 11-19-2009, 01:10 PM

Sorry, I thought that was way, way out of character for you.

atlantainsguy · 11-19-2009, 01:14 PM

Winter, this isn't about Obama. It's about how we originally and almost immediately took our eyes off the real enemy who perpetrated 9/11.

Atlantainsguy

Robert Barney · 11-19-2009, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Charpress

Sorry, I thought that was way, way out of character for you.

I guess I will have to make my next completely ridiculous, over the top posting, even more ridiculous and even more over the top.

Charpress · 11-19-2009, 01:53 PM

I was against going into Iraq at the time because I saw Saddam as the only guy who could balance off Iran while at the same time keeping a lid on the nutjobs in his own country. We had a very good game for years playing those two countries of crazies against each other.

To my thinking, the balance of power there was more important than any other consideration. However, there was at least a fairly good and logical argument for going in based on intelligence and based on Saddam's constant disregard of all the agreements that came out of the first war.

For sure, we would not have the problem with Iran that we have now if Saddam had been left alone. I just don't know what other problems we might have.