In some ways this seems like Monday morning quarterbacking. Are we actually learning from history or just feeling good about rehashing an event we didn’t participate in (wasn’t born yet), feeling morally superior (that’s not what I would’ve done), or attempting to find some grounds on which to justify Israel’s response to Hamas, no matter what form it takes.
If my parents were still alive, I would ask them for an educated opinion since they lived through WWII. I have their wedding pictures of my father and two of his three brothers all in uniform from different branches of the military. His eldest brother was in the action of the Pacific theater and couldn’t leave his base.
My father and uncles (the two at the wedding survived) never spoke much about their experiences. What I did hear I learned many years later, wasn’t the entire truth, because my father had a habit of making light of things.
I don’t believe that our government has any business telling Israel what to do or how to do it. Our government doesn’t have an exemplary record of giving good advice or doing the right things. Leaders on both sides of the political aisle are woefully lacking in leadership, communication skills and common sense. Whether Israel gets it right or wrong, that’s on their leadership. and one for historians to haggle over.
Paid agitator and students with underdeveloped brains won’t move the needle with me and I suspect a few others regarding Israel. I believe that a higher power is in charge.
What would you say of the allied demand for unconditional surrender from Japan? I think that point is largely missed in this discourse—we wouldn’t have had to invade (and by extension, wouldn’t have decided to use the bomb to AVOID invading) if we’d blockaded and negotiated.
Interesting. I think you're holding on to nukes for deterrence value is more problematic for your view that you realize. I do respect your view. I just don't agree. War is hell. It should be. God gives the sword to the civil authorities. Don't wage war to begin with.
Ben Shapiro is arguing against his case. The moral calculation he makes to justify the bombs is a carbon copy of globalists Thanos-like justifications for abortion campaigns: kill now, so we don't have to kill later and more. I will never understand balancing a certain outcome with a hypothetical as anything but a bankrupt morality. Why? Because it's no different than the moral musings of a genocide. Nobody embarking on a genocidal mission does it without an allegedly moral argument: there's always an existential threat bound to materialize and purportedly worse than the damage sought that you can concoct and sell it to your constituency.
Thank you Bethel for writing this article. It will continue to move and stir me for days;
In some ways this seems like Monday morning quarterbacking. Are we actually learning from history or just feeling good about rehashing an event we didn’t participate in (wasn’t born yet), feeling morally superior (that’s not what I would’ve done), or attempting to find some grounds on which to justify Israel’s response to Hamas, no matter what form it takes.
If my parents were still alive, I would ask them for an educated opinion since they lived through WWII. I have their wedding pictures of my father and two of his three brothers all in uniform from different branches of the military. His eldest brother was in the action of the Pacific theater and couldn’t leave his base.
My father and uncles (the two at the wedding survived) never spoke much about their experiences. What I did hear I learned many years later, wasn’t the entire truth, because my father had a habit of making light of things.
I don’t believe that our government has any business telling Israel what to do or how to do it. Our government doesn’t have an exemplary record of giving good advice or doing the right things. Leaders on both sides of the political aisle are woefully lacking in leadership, communication skills and common sense. Whether Israel gets it right or wrong, that’s on their leadership. and one for historians to haggle over.
Paid agitator and students with underdeveloped brains won’t move the needle with me and I suspect a few others regarding Israel. I believe that a higher power is in charge.
What would you say of the allied demand for unconditional surrender from Japan? I think that point is largely missed in this discourse—we wouldn’t have had to invade (and by extension, wouldn’t have decided to use the bomb to AVOID invading) if we’d blockaded and negotiated.
Interesting. I think you're holding on to nukes for deterrence value is more problematic for your view that you realize. I do respect your view. I just don't agree. War is hell. It should be. God gives the sword to the civil authorities. Don't wage war to begin with.
Difficult topic. I was helped in thinking about this by getting a look at the Japanese War Cabinet as shown in “Road to Surrender” by Evan Thomas.
Ben Shapiro is arguing against his case. The moral calculation he makes to justify the bombs is a carbon copy of globalists Thanos-like justifications for abortion campaigns: kill now, so we don't have to kill later and more. I will never understand balancing a certain outcome with a hypothetical as anything but a bankrupt morality. Why? Because it's no different than the moral musings of a genocide. Nobody embarking on a genocidal mission does it without an allegedly moral argument: there's always an existential threat bound to materialize and purportedly worse than the damage sought that you can concoct and sell it to your constituency.
Why do feel you must render a judgement on Israel's actions?