data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4cafe/4cafe180227655559743b0fb17b751ccdce08dc3" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/cfd2a/cfd2a1dbdaa2a4665edc5da6ca698927da8c09c6" alt=""
You’re right, the behavior of how Iraq and Afghanistan were handled was entirely different from either Germany or Japan after WW2.
My assertion is that the USA did too much “occupation” and not enough “governance”. Both Iraq and Afghanistan essentially had anti-government resistance movements forced into pseudo-national rule without any time to develop local governance.
Once the states were broken W wanted to get out, essentially since he feared accusations of imperialism. Which kept a good twenty year plan from being implemented, and instead led to a twenty year quagmire with one of the two essentially being a failed state.
(Man, that’s a lot of essentially’s)
I don’t mean to defend either invasion as either good for the people or necessarily for American security. I just want to point out that W’s position was “go and break things then go home” which is about as imperial as a viking raid.
Pascal’s wager is a defense of theism in general, not a specific flavor of theism. If you accept that there is a God, any God, then you can reason and argue about which way to worship her is correct.
If you do not believe that God exists, however, then the particularities of which godhead you worship are irrelevant trivia.
If God or Brahman or Kamisama exist, then they are aware of the imperfect worship flavors that they receive and have appropriate accommodations included, if they are worthy of worship at all. (Please note that Zeus is not included in this list, because that guy’s just a rapist bastard.)