chihuahua: Silly submitter thinks the US should have given up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

Leave Senator Blutarski out of this.

Teekno: No, actually, is wording is completely correct. We can assume things about his argument that are wrong, but they aren't in the headline.

Smitty here. Yes: The headline does not--repeat NOT--say that the US declared war on Germany IN RESPONSE TO Pearl Harbor. Just pointing out that the columnist's analogy made him look dumb because we did declare war on not one, but two nations that had never attacked us.

Furthermore, he goes on to speculate how silly it would have been if we had declared war on, say, Taiwan in response to Pearl Harbor. Since Taiwan was an ally of Japan, he's not helping himself.

Bottom line: He may have a valid argument about how the war in Iraq did not and/or should not have had anything to do with 9/11. But his ignorance of history lead him to select analogies that made him look rather stupid.

Gecko Gingrich: you are implying as hard as one can without actually coming out and saying it that war was declared on German and Italy in response to Pearl Harbor

The progression from 9/11:

9/11-->war in Afghanistan-->a lot of blustering and threats from Saddam Hussein, but no actual attacks-->war in Iraq.

The progression from Pearl Harbor:

Pearl Harbor-->war declared on Japan-->Germany/Italy declare war on US, but don't actually attack-->war declared on Germany/Italy.

The columnist couldn't have picked an example that made him look dumber if he had tried. Germany and Italy (at least ostensibly) declared war on the US because FDR had just declared war on Japan. And he declared war on Japan because they had attacked us.

Could we not arguably say, then, that the US declared war on Germany and Italy as part of the response to Pearl Harbor? That's a bit of a stretch, I think. But it certainly leaves more holes in this columnist's analogies than in a pound of Swiss cheese.

jarrett: Yeah, well what about Thailand?

Ack! Sorry--brain fart.

The CraneMeister: The progression from 9/11:

Almost forgot:

What ties the two periods in history together is this:

1. Unprovoked attack on US.
2. US response to country originating the attack.
3. That country's allie(s) threaten to retaliate against the US.
4. US takes the battle to THEM as well.

Far more similarities than this nitwit thinks.

jarrett: a.) Germany was already engaged in war with our closest allies.
b.) Germany had already declared war on the US.
c.) The US was attacked by an ally of the German's.
d.) This entire argument is retarded.
e.) I don't think anyone is buying what you're trying to sell.

a. Iraq has been at war with Israel and the West in general for years.
b. Iraq declared war on the US, had fought the US in the first Gulf War and tried to assassinate Bush pere.
c. The US was attacked by an ally of Iraq.
d. Speak for yourself.
e. I'm not selling anything except my contention that this columnist is a dumbass.

Gecko Gingrich: Iraq had *zero* to do with the 9/11 attacks. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

And Germany had *zero* to do with Pearl Harbor. You're only underscoring my point about how the two situations have a lot of parallels.

Must run. Enjoy your weekend, hopefully in a way that lets you REMEMBER your weekend come Monday.