From a historical point of view (bringing this back to the OP, much as I hate to interrupt a good hijack) the question is going to be whether or not this signals a change in eras.
From WWII up until today we have not suffered from a major, global war with all the suffering and drain on our resources that that implies. If this is the opening battle of WWIII, then this will indeed be worse than Pearl Harbor because Pearl Harbor, even though we obviously didn’t know it at the time, came closer to the end of the era of massive global military conflict that characterized the first half of the twentieth century than the beginning. If this attack is the start of a new era of massive global military conflict, then in historical terms it will be worse, far worse, than Pearl Harbor.
Oh, please.
Doesn’t even compare. IIRC (don’t have a cite but I can probably hunt one down), the Mexican forces were recapturing a site that had been captured by the Texans months before. They (the Texans) were at war with a known enemy and, though caught by surprise, had had time to fortify the Alamo and had no reason to think that they were safe, like the Pearl Harbor military at a base in peacetime or the civilians at work in an office building (yes there were some military personnel at the Pentagon, for you nitpickers out there…).
Also, the loss of lives was in the hundreds, not thethousands…
Woah, dude! I’m sorry! It just came up in conversation, someone told me that Sept 11 will be remembered like Pearl Harbor and the Alamo. The Alamo seems very iconic, that’s why I was asking.
… and I’m sorry for jumping down yer throat :). I will agree that it is definitley one of the most remembered events in American history (even though it happened before Texas was America , for you nitpckers out there ;))