[DoodleDawg]

Something like 2,400 people killed and many billions of dollars of ships and infrastructure destroyed, and you are comparing it to the sanguine eviction of occupiers from Sumter?

So if the Japanese had bombed the faclities and sunk the ships but through some miracle nobody had been killed then would you say, as central_va seems to believe, that Roosevelt should have declared a cease fire and request negotiations? Or should he have pursued the war that had been forced upon him?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well firstly, Sumter was *THEIRS* and they paid for it. You know they paid 73% of the taxes, and therefore most military bases were paid for by them, plus it was in their territory, and only given to the Government with the understanding that it was to be used for their defense, not their oppression.

Secondly, you just gloss right over that many billions of dollars of property destroyed.

Thirdly, you analogy would only make sense if Pearl Harbor was outside of Tokyo or something.

Ridiculous analogy. I've even posted photographs showing the difference in scale and importance between the two installations. Pearl Harbor is still being used, and has a very significant military mission. Sumter was only occupied for a very short time after the war, but never did serve any useful purpose other than threatening the Confederates.

Even Lincoln said it did more by falling than it ever could have done by standing.

Worthless speck of nothing that had no real value other than to intimidate the people of South Carolina.

[SoCal Pubbie]

According to DimLamp, the U.S. started the war with Japan by initiating the oil embargo. It doesn’t matter who fired first.