US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:
"An attack on our shores worse than Pearl Harbor" -where was that?

9/11.

In what sense? This seems barmy to me. Some freelance fanatics with box-cutters are worse than the combined efforts of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air force?

0 Replies

Certainly not, and there is no reason why i shouldn't point out that he's attempting a post hoc justification of the invasion of Iraq by comparing the September 11th attacks and the subsequent "war on terror" to Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War. Apples to oranges in my never humble opinion, as soon as one goes beyond the invasion of Afghanistan.

0 Replies

Quote:

I've only seen you criticize him in the past, hence my remark.

But his pov on Iraq, is his pov. It differs from yours, but that doesn't make it wrong.

No, reality makes it wrong. Set just happened to point this fact out.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McTag has a good point. And as far as Hanson's evinced love of the militarily competent is concerned, he should praise the attack on Pearl Harbor. It was predicated upon a military expedient of the type he praises in reference to the Lacedaemonians, and Yamamoto, Genda, Fuchida and all of the Imperial Navy officers who planned and executed the attack pulled off one of the greatest military operations against long odds in history.

It is Hanson's selective vision to which i object, and his application of the values of a brutal and primitive military state like Laconia to the complex modern world is unwarrantable.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

The entire quote is, "The truth, as we are reminded so often in this present conflict, is that usually in war there are no good alternatives, and leaders must select between a very bad and even worse choice."

I think as an extension to this, you could say "If you declare a phony war where none existed before, then bad and worse things are bound to flow from that decision"

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
McTag wrote:
"An attack on our shores worse than Pearl Harbor" -where was that?

9/11.

In what sense? This seems barmy to me. Some freelance fanatics with box-cutters are worse than the combined efforts of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air force?

Well, they did cause more deaths. I call that "worse," don't you?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
The entire quote is, "The truth, as we are reminded so often in this present conflict, is that usually in war there are no good alternatives, and leaders must select between a very bad and even worse choice."

I think as an extension to this, you could say "If you declare a phony war where none existed before, then bad and worse things are bound to flow from that decision"

Thankfully, VDH isn't afflicted with your gift of writing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Well, they did cause more deaths. I call that "worse," don't you?

Not really.

The death count was higher for 9/11 but not by much, and importantly, there was no loss of military material in a time of war.

While we rebounded from Pearl Harbor without too much of a problem, a lot of that had to do with luck; it was a serious blow to our might in the region during a time of war.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
McTag wrote:
"An attack on our shores worse than Pearl Harbor" -where was that?

9/11.

In what sense? This seems barmy to me. Some freelance fanatics with box-cutters are worse than the combined efforts of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air force?

Well, they did cause more deaths. I call that "worse," don't you?

The buildings actually fell down because they were not adequately fireproofed. I do not advance this as a mitigating factor, of course, but the tragedy did not have to be so extreme.
In the climate afterwards, no-one seriously was going to blame the architect and the construction company, but (speaking as an engineer, and not as a goddam pinko liberal) it's a factor.

No, I don't call it worse. But it was the spur that smirking George needed, part of his "Trifecta". It was his lucky break, he thought at the time.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Well, they did cause more deaths. I call that "worse," don't you?

Not really.

The death count was higher for 9/11 but not by much, and importantly, there was no loss of military material in a time of war.

While we rebounded from Pearl Harbor without too much of a problem, a lot of that had to do with luck; it was a serious blow to our might in the region during a time of war.

Cycloptichorn

Right .... an attack that caused more deaths to primarily civilian targets is "not worse" than an attack on primarily military targets, because the death count was "not much" higher. Rolling Eyes

Maybe we have a fundamental difference in outlook: I view the attacks on civilians (terrorist attacks) as "worse." You don't seem to share that view.

0 Replies

Yeah, and those battle ships wouldn't have sunk if they were constructed better, right McTag?

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
McTag wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
McTag wrote:
"An attack on our shores worse than Pearl Harbor" -where was that?

9/11.

In what sense? This seems barmy to me. Some freelance fanatics with box-cutters are worse than the combined efforts of the Imperial Japanese Navy and Air force?

Well, they did cause more deaths. I call that "worse," don't you?

The buildings actually fell down because they were not adequately fireproofed. I do not advance this as a mitigating factor, of course, but the tragedy did not have to be so extreme.
In the climate afterwards, no-one seriously was going to blame the architect and the construction company, but (speaking as an engineer, and not as a goddam pinko liberal) it's a factor.

That the buildings fell was caused by the fact that huge airplanes were flown into them. If you're not trying to advance that as mitigation, why did you say it? For that matter, if we'd had better armor on our ships at Pearl Harbor, perhaps there would have been fewer deaths there as well. As it is, deaths did occur in both places, and those deaths were proximately caused by the respective attacks by the 9/11 terrorists and the Japanese military. Nobody blamed the architect and the construction company because only a fool would do so.

I'm envisioning the scenario where a policeman is killed because armor piercing bullets ripped through his bullet-proof vest. The defendant advances as his defense the fact that had the policeman been wearing a stronger or better vest, he might not have died. Ridiculous.

McT wrote:

No, I don't call it worse. But it was the spur that smirking George needed, part of his "Trifecta". It was his lucky break, he thought at the time.

Now you're speaking as a pinko liberal.

0 Replies

Quote:

Right .... an attack that caused more deaths to primarily civilian targets is "not worse" than an attack on primarily military targets, because the death count was "not much" higher.

Maybe we have a fundamental difference in outlook: I view the attacks on civilians (terrorist attacks) as "worse." You don't seem to share that view.

http://www.worldwar2history.info/Pearl-Harbor/

There were 2113 casualties from Pearl Harbor and 18 ships sank or put out of commission.

I don't view attacks on civilians as 'worse' by definition, know. The overall importance for the nation can vary according to a lot of factors.

9/11 was bad but there was no loss of war material during a time of aggression; and this has to be counted when deciding which attack was 'worse.'

Excellent attempt to grab the moral high ground, though.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Yeah, and those battle ships wouldn't have sunk if they were constructed better, right McTag?

What a marvelous display of ignorance. In fact, although most of the battleships that were sunk were very old, many dating from before the First World War, they were so well armored that the Japanese went to a great deal of trouble to attempt to find a way to pierce their armor. The Imperial Navy used carrier-born high-altitude bombers, something we did not have in our arsenal. They found a way to make stable bombs out of 16" armor-piercing shells in order to pierce the deck armor of the American battleships with high-altitude attacks. This is just another example of just how brilliant the Japanese attack was. As far as concerns the World Trade Towers, those shithooks just got lucky.

0 Replies

BBB
bm

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, and those battle ships wouldn't have sunk if they were constructed better, right McTag?

What a marvelous display of ignorance. In fact, although most of the battleships that were sunk were very old, many dating from before the First World War, they were so well armored that the Japanese went to a great deal of trouble to attempt to find a way to pierce their armor. The Imperial Navy used carrier-born high-altitude bombers, something we did not have in our arsenal. They found a way to make stable bombs out of 16" armor-piercing shells in order to pierce the deck armor of the American battleships with high-altitude attacks. This is just another example of just how brilliant the Japanese attack was. As far as concerns the World Trade Towers, those shithooks just got lucky.

"What a marvelous display of ignorance."

I couldn't agree more. I am glad to see yet another insignificant display of your haughty attitude completely overlooking the point...

Are you sure your reading skills are up to par?

0 Replies

So far this morning, you have displayed your typical contribution to these fora. Not a single post on topic, all of them intended to sneer at and insult the other members. Your "contribution" is, as always, pathetic and irrelevant.

0 Replies

Heh, I thought I was the only one who had noticed that today, set

Why don't you cowboy up and try making some posts of substance, McG? They generally aren't too bad - when you try.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So far this morning, you have displayed your typical contribution to these fora. Not a single post on topic, all of them intended to sneer at and insult the other members. Your "contribution" is, as always, pathetic and irrelevant.

Oh! Look, the pot is attempting to call the kettle black!

0 Replies

In fact, there was a long series of exchanges between Tico and i on the content of the Hanson article he had posted, which you might have noted if you came here with any other purpose than to spew contempt at members. You've added nothing except a witless and uniformed comment about the battleships at Pearl Harbor, which demonstrated how little you know of the subject.

0 Replies

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know