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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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.