WTMA commentary broadcast 8/12/08:
- Jack Hunter
Columnist
The "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator (WTMA 1250 AM talk radio) and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina.
City Paper Blogs
The News blog has moved hereThe Arts blog has moved hereThe Calendar blog has moved hereThe Music blog has moved hereby Jack Hunterby columnist Will MoredockLocal fashion deals and tipsOur new flirt/rant boardfrom writer David Lee Nelsonby Greg HambrickClassical music reviews from Lindsay KoobVideos, photos and shows from web editor Joshua Curry-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- charles vlodek on The Hypocrisy of the NAACP
- charles vlodek on The Hypocrisy of the NAACP
- eber hart on Pat Buchanan on the Financial Crisis
- HGA on SA Radio – Pride in Prejudice
- paul mcclaren on A note about southernavenger.com
5 Comments
Incredible commentary Jack. Please continue to challenge our way of thinking.
Southern Avenger,
I am a conservative in many ways, but I don’t subscribe to the fact that one can equate Al Qaeda’s attack on NYC to the bombings that took place in WWII. While both, I agree, were horrifying…they share no more similarity than the fact loss of life occurred. We were at war with Japan, and war sometimes involves loss of innocents…we were not at war with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda chose to start this war just as the Japanese did with the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Do you think that only military men died at Pearl?
I think it is easy for someone like yourself to make these rash comparisons, because you weren’t there. Do you know what Truman was thinking? Were you even alive in 45?
Hindsight is always 20/20, but it is harder to see when you have your head up your butt!!
I’m not defending the atomic bomb attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. But 9/11 was a pre-emptive attack, while the former was not. It occurred during a time of war (as in “all is fair in…”). Was the bombing moral? No, I don’t believe it was. But then, is war moral? What exactly constitutes moral and immoral actions during a time of war? Are all war crimes justifiable, or should some, if not all, be prosecuted? Is there an absolute moral yardstick used to determine guilt? What makes one side’s atrocities justifiable, and the other’s “war crimes?” Is it just a matter of who happens to win the conflict at the time?
The cold hard fact is this: war, by its very nature, is a brutal, horrific, hellish testimony of man’s inhumanity to man. For this reason, it is something to be avoided at just about all costs, because once war has been declared, the gloves come off and anything goes. Nobody looks back until it’s over.
That is why I cringe at the thought of any one U.S. president casually declaring war against something as vague as “terrorists”.
Japan chose to start war? Before Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had issued a directive that released men serving in the Army and Air Force reserves from their obligations, so they could fight for China. Chenault’s Raiders were the foreign fighters of their day.
Good commentary SA. One could also argue the same thing about Dresden.