4 ms·

Fine, if you want to be nit-picky about the necessity of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, you're more than welcome. But either way, it's abundantly clear that the

by mhaas12 14y ago

Fine, if you want to be nit-picky about the necessity of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, you're more than welcome. But either way, it's abundantly clear that the 9/11 attacks precipitated both of those wars. There is simply no way the neoconservatives could have convinced Congress of the need to invade Afghanistan or Iraq without the 9/11 attacks. Pearl Harbor may have forced our hand more clearly, so to speak, but both attacks were deep provocations. You can separate out the intent of the attacks if you want to be precise--Japan's to establish military domination in the Pacific, and Al Qaeda's simply to wreak havoc, or what have you--but in broader terms each represented a physical challenge to the United States' influence over particular spheres. And besides, the point that's trying to be made here is exactly that: There may not be any more "Pearl Harbors," if you want to define Pearl Harbor as a military attack by a sovereign nation. But if you want to define "Pearl Harbors" as serious, potentially dangerous attacks against the US, they are more likely these days to be of a terroristic or digital nature. You're missing the forest through the trees, my friend.

EliRivers 14y ago
Nit-picky about the necessity? Two countries were invaded without posing any threat to the US! "Pearl Harbor may have forced our hand more clearly, so to speak, but both attacks were deep provocations." What exactly was 9/11 a provocation to do? Most of the people involved were already dead, and they weren't state actors - they were private citizens. What exactly was that a provocation for the US to do? "each represented a physical challenge to the United States' influence over particular spheres." One represented a challenge to physically and economically dominate the Pacific for the foreseeable future. One represented a challenge to the structural integrity of some buildings in New York. The scale, effect and consequences are so fantastically different that I genuinely struggle to understand how they can be seen in principle as the same thing. "But if you want to define "Pearl Harbors" as serious, potentially dangerous attacks against the US" By this definition, 9/11, which was not a serious, potentially dangerous attack against the US, was not a Pearl Harbour. It was a criminal act that killed a lot of people and caused a lot of damage. It was not a serious threat to the US.

by mhaas12 14y ago

EliRivers 14y ago

Nit-picky about the necessity? Two countries were invaded without posing any threat to the US! "Pearl Harbor may have forced our hand more clearly, so to speak, but both attacks were deep provocations." What exactly was 9/11 a provocation to do? Most of the people involved were already dead, and they weren't state actors - they were private citizens. What exactly was that a provocation for the US to do? "each represented a physical challenge to the United States' influence over particular spheres." One represented a challenge to physically and economically dominate the Pacific for the foreseeable future. One represented a challenge to the structural integrity of some buildings in New York. The scale, effect and consequences are so fantastically different that I genuinely struggle to understand how they can be seen in principle as the same thing. "But if you want to define "Pearl Harbors" as serious, potentially dangerous attacks against the US" By this definition, 9/11, which was not a serious, potentially dangerous attack against the US, was not a Pearl Harbour. It was a criminal act that killed a lot of people and caused a lot of damage. It was not a serious threat to the US.