I’m not sure why GW Hayduke and Brickhorn gave me the double bird. Not that it bothers me that much; I just didn’t understand what I posted that they disagreed with.
Do they just dislike anyone commenting that way about the atom bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I have pondered Truman’s decision and can understand why he made it- still, I don’t see any way around noting that our country dropped atom bombs on civilian population centers, and that is a horrific thing to do. We did it, and we should own it, in my opinion.
Do they feel I am using that rhetoric- responding to monstrosity with monstrosity-as an apologetic for Israel in Gaza? I didn’t mean it that way. After 3.5 years of fighting Imperial Japan, after hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of civilians killed by the Japanese, after Okinawa, there were no non-monstrous options to end the war (the above referenced comment about accepting a surrender is interesting, but not compelling, given the just completed Okinawa experience. Recent research has revealed that Imperial Japan’s last strategy was to convince the U.S. that the final battles would involve the last Japanese subjects fighting to the death. Plus, there is the whole element of Russia jumping in after Berlin fell; they were not interested in a peace negotiation; they wanted to grab as much of China as they could). The U.S. Pacific War was uniquely horrific, worse even than the German-Russian fighting.
Israel is in a different situation. Yes, Hamas are monsters, but, no, Israel is not reduced to only monstrous options for responding. More is expected of them.