whats the difference between peril harbor and 911??

Question

on dec 7th 1941 japan attacked pearl horbor and the united states banned together. women went to work. men that could not join the military lied about there age some commited sucied. they sacrificed to do what they had to.
more people died at the world trade center then men at pearl harbor. poeple that had nothing to do with war and matters of that nature. now today everyone is crying about the war on terrior. im in the military and have seen first hand what war brings and i dont condone it by no means what so ever war is cruel and unforegiving.but why is the world have this attuited of lets just wait and see what they do next time? what is so diffrent of what happend in 1941 and now? we go into a store after work with our uniform on and you say crap to us.
whats done is done and i dont think there is any way out.
bush and bin ladin should go toe to toe and have it out.
bush with some moonshine and that texas temper would win.
sorry for the miss spelling's

Answer 1

The biggest difference is that Americans stood together & made the necessary sacrifices to win after Pearl Harbor.
After 9/11, Americans stood together for less than a year then it was whining & politics like usually. It is trully a shame how completelt self center we have become. Everything is "what is in it for me" & they have forgotten how it felt on 9/11. My Mother & other who lived through Pearl Harbor never forgot that loss of safety & feeling of violation.

Answer 2

At the time of Pearl Harbor, the rest of the world had been at war for three years, and US had done their best to ignore it. The attack forced the US to see that they could not pretend to be neutral - they had to get their act together and join the allies in the fight against Hitler and his allies (which included Japan)
9-11 happened when no war had been declared - that's why it was even more of a shock than P.Harbor.
The reason people are pissed off about the present war is that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack. 17 of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. It's pretty obvious that the real reason for the present war is the desire to have control over Iraq's oil.

Answer 3

The attack on Pearl Harbor was done by a country with delineated boundries. Someone could pull up a map, and point at a green blob, and cry, 'Japan!' And lo and behold, the map would say, 'Japan.'

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 were done by a terrorist organization without boudaries. You can't pull up a map and say, 'Al Qaeda.' It's all over the Middle East, moving into Africa, etc. In order to 'destroy' this enemy along the same thoughts would be to invade the entire Middle East and North Africa, from Pakistan to Algeria.

Not to mention that 1941 lacked the suffocating world media reporting when a civilian stands up in the middle of a firefight and gets shot, blaming a country for human rights violations.

Answer 4

Your argument would make sense, except for one thing. With WWII, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US didn't start a war with China. They went to war with the people who attacked the US at Pearl Harbor. Granted, 9/11 was a terrible tradegy, but Iraq didn't plan it, didn't train the terrorists, didn't supply the terrorists, didn't hide the terrorists, basically didn't do anything. 13 of the 15 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, but we didn't attack them. The terrorists were trained in Iran, but we didn't attack them. Bin Laden was and to this day is known to be in Afghanistan, but we didn't really go to war with them, no Bush had a better idea. We didn't follow our own policies, rules of engagement, or anything. Bush made up a story, told it to the people and convinced everyone that Hussein was the head of all evil.

Answer 5

one was a terrorist attack, by every definition, by a major transnational terrorist organization

the other was a surprise military attack by a rival nation, an entirely normal tactic within a larger war strategy
--
people, terrorists attack civilian targets to TERRORIZE. Pearl harbor was a 100% military target as part of a nation versus nation war.

traditional wars are like sports -- they surrender, you win, game over.

eliminating terrorism is like pulling weeds, or the war against drugs, as long as the root cause exists or demand exists, they will keep coming back again and again, you will never be done.

1960's domestic terrorism ended with the end of the Vietnam war and civil rights.

Communist terrorist groups throughout Western Europe only disbanded with the fall of Communism. They where never defeated militarily or by law enforcement.

Answer 6

In the minds of many Americans It is One and the same. All those countries that harbor them are responsible and Know who and where they are. It was a back hand slap! We need to secure our ports and Borders now and not allow them any entry. They have been doing trial runs for a very long time!

Answer 7

Because after Pearl Harbor, we kicked the crap out of the country responsible, unlike 9/11, where we invaded Iraq on a slew of half-truths and straw-men arguments.

Answer 8

hey you raise alot of good points in your question. true, there are many similarities between 9/11 and pearl harbor. both were surprise attacks resulting in massive loss of american life. however, the differences between these two attacks are numerous. first, and most importantly, on sept. 11th, an international terrorist organization (al qaeda). the problem there is that we had no nation to retaliate against. we went after afghanistan and its taliban government, who harbored and supported al qaeda, but the notion that we could attack one country and be done with the whole ordeal, as we did back in WW2, is misguided. most people today that have problems with the "war on terror" argue that the tragedies of sept. 11th were used as a political tool for the bush administration to attack iraq, which it had been planning to do even before 9/11. they point to the open ended nature of the war in iraq, and feel that this is a mess that we're going to be stuck in forever. as far as troop support goes, i believe that the government should do as much as it can to keep our fighting men and women home, rather than dying in a sandpit halfway across the world. i think that the conflict in iraq now is more of a civil matter that needs to be dealt with by the iraqis. even if we succeed in ending the bloodshed in iraq, our presence there will still be resented. we have to realize that the iraqis simply don't like us, and they don't want us in their country. in hindsight, more could have been done to ensure that our mission would have run smoother, and with less opposition. and as for bin laden, i am constantly wondering why he isn't on the forefront of the news, why he isn't still the main focus in the war on terror. its been almost 6 years since 9/11, and our government, particularly president bush, hasn't said a word about him since 2003. why go after iraq when they had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. we got saddam, but what about bin laden? and you know what, screw the people that talk crap about you and the rest of our military. you don't have to support bush's war to support america's troops.

Answer 9

The only difference between the two events is that the Japanese were courageous enough to stand up and admit with they had done, VS the cowardly terrorist of 911 and you are right, this country hasn't been put out one iota with this war other than what the whining media has used to bring their liberals back into power.

Answer 10

One involved skyscrapers and the other did not.
They both achieved the same desired outcome.
A galvanized America ready for war.