J Reuben Clark on the "fiendish butchery" of Japanese Civilians

[jvquarterback]

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=262&era=yes

"And the worst of this atomic bomb tragedy is not that not only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men, women, and children, and cripples, but that it actually drew from the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish butchery." J Reuben Clark

http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=239

"This occurred in the midst of the madness of murder we call World War II. The hearts of men were already bleeding from the wounds of long years of warfare. Now, the new power seemed as an added unspeakable horror that promised a new type of destruction so awful that the hearts of men failed them. The rising ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appeared as burnt offerings to the incarnation of the world's evil." John A Widstoe

And if you are buying the lie that the bombs were necessary to prevent further loss of life for American soldiers here is a Harper's editorial apologizing for allowing President Truman to use it's pages to tell that lie to the American people.

So if President Obama finally says what President Truman should have said so long ago, I won't be upset. In fact, I'll say it's one of three decent things he's done as president.

[SpiffCoug]

I'm absolutely shocked that jvqb thinks America is wrong.

[jvquarterback]

Read the article from Harper's. All of Truman's advisers were against using the bomb. Multiple military advisers including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy both said in the weeks and months after the bombing it was completely unnecessary. Imagine today's spineless military leaders saying anything like that.

I'm saying America was right and Truman was wrong. Truman dropped the bombs so the Soviets wouldn't get credit (they invaded Manchuria the day before the bomb was dropped), not to save any American lives. He prolonged the war by not allowing the emperor to continue in a ceremonial role (the main sticking point in the Japanese surrender months before the bomb).

Truman was a liar and a murderer of children and sacrificed his own troops to get a stupid, unnecessary concession from the Japanese. I hope he finds forgiveness. I certainly don't fault America and Americans who had nothing to do with the bombing.

[snoscythe]

I find myself gravitating more and more toward Ezra Taft Benson's perspective on foreign policy, but it's a slow and hard transition as a Top Gun-generation kid.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/ez ... gn-policy/

[HoosierCougar]

I find myself gravitating more and more toward Ezra Taft Benson's perspective on foreign policy, but it's a slow and hard transition as a Top Gun-generation kid.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/ez ... gn-policy/

Dear Top Gun generation kid,
Can you give me that ETB blog post in 140 characters or less?
Sincerely,
a millennial generation kid

[SpiffCoug]

I find myself gravitating more and more toward Ezra Taft Benson's perspective on foreign policy, but it's a slow and hard transition as a Top Gun-generation kid.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/ez ... gn-policy/

Dear Top Gun generation kid,
Can you give me that ETB blog post in 140 characters or less?
Sincerely,
a millennial generation kid

The proper function of government must be limited to a defensive role–the defense of individual citizens against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude at the hands of either domestic or foreign criminals. But to protect our people from bodily harm at the hands of foreign aggressors, we must maintain a military force which is not only capable of crushing an invasion, but of striking a sufficiently powerful counterblow as to make in unattractive for would-be conquerors to try their luck with us.

[SpiffCoug]

Some other quotes I liked:

Until all nations follow the concept of limited government, it is unlikely that universal peace will ever be realized on this planet. Unlimited, power-grasping governments will always resort to force if they think they can get away with it.(9) But there can be peace for America. As long as our leaders faithfully discharge their duty to preserve and strengthen the military, economic and political independence of our Republic, the world’s petty despots will leave us alone.

The world is smaller, you say? True, it is, but if one finds himself locked in a house with maniacs, thieves and murderers–even a small house–he does not increase his chances of survival by entering into alliances with his potential attackers and becoming dependent upon them for protection to the point where he is unable to defend himself. Perhaps the analogy between nations and maniacs is a little strong for some to accept. But if we put aside our squeamishness over strong language, and look hard at the real world in which we live, the analogy is quite sound in all but the rarest exceptions.

Already, I can hear the chorus chanting “Isolationism, isolationism, he’s turning back the clock to isolationism.” How many use that word without having the slightest idea of what it really means! The so-called isolationism of the United States in past decades is a pure myth. What isolationism? Long before the current trend of revoking our Declaration of Independence under the guise of international cooperation, American influence and trade was felt in every region of the globe. Individuals and private groups spread knowledge, business, prosperity, religion, good will and, above all, respect throughout every foreign continent. It was not necessary then for America to give up her independence to have contact and influence with other countries. It is not necessary now. Yet, many Americans have been led to believe that our country is so strong that it can defend, feed and subsidize half the world, while at the same time believing that we are so weak and “inter-dependent” that we cannot survive without pooling our resources and sovereignty with those we subsidize. If wanting no part of this kind of “logic” is isolationism, then it is time we brought it back into vogue.

Everyone is for peace and against war–particularly the horrors of nuclear war. And what are the horrors of war? Why, death, destruction and human suffering, of course! But, wait a minute. Since the big “peace” began at the end of World War II, isn’t it a fact that, behind the iron and bamboo curtains, there has been more death, destruction and human suffering than in most of the big wars of history combined? Yes, it is a fact–a horrible fact–which Martin Dies, the former long-time Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, described in these words:
In Russia, a minimum of 25,000,000 people have been starved to death and murdered in 45 years. In Red China, the figure is probably at least 35,000,000 in a short 12 years. These ruthless, inhuman atrocities have been investigated, documented and reported in print, by numerous committees of the Congress. Yet only a relative handful of Americans know where to look for the facts, or even know the reports exist; and still fewer have read them. (The Martin Dies Story, p. 20)

A consideration of these facts means that we have to redefine our terms when we talk about “peace.” There are two kinds of peace. If we define peace as merely the absence of war, then we could be talking about the peace that reigns in a communist slave labor camp. The wretched souls in prison there are not at war, but do you think they would call it peace?

The only real peace–the one most of us think about when we use the term–is a peace with freedom. A Nation that is not willing, if necessary, to face the rigors of war to defend its real peace-in-freedom is doomed to lose both its freedom and its peace! These are the hard facts of life. We may not like them, but until we live in a far better world than exists today, we must face up to them squarely and courageously.(8)

From these primary policy pronouncements some general principles emerge. They can be reduced to a few heads and stated as imperatives in the following manner:
The United States should:

- Establish and maintain a position of independence with regard to other countries
- Avoid political connection, involvement or intervention in the affairs of other countries
- Make no permanent or entangling alliances
- Treat all nations impartially, neither granting nor accepting special privileges from any
- Promote commerce with all free peoples and countries
- Cooperate with other countries to develop civilized rules of intercourse
- Act always in accordance with the “laws of Nations”
- Remedy all just claims of injury to other nations and require just treatment from other nations, standing ready, if necessary to punish offenders
- Maintain a defensive force of sufficient magnitude to deter aggressors.

[hawkwing]

I find myself gravitating more and more toward Ezra Taft Benson's perspective on foreign policy, but it's a slow and hard transition as a Top Gun-generation kid.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/ez ... gn-policy/

Dear Top Gun generation kid,
Can you give me that ETB blog post in 140 characters or less?
Sincerely,
a millennial generation kid

The proper function of government must be limited to a defensive role–the defense of individual citizens against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude at the hands of either domestic or foreign criminals. But to protect our people from bodily harm at the hands of foreign aggressors, we must maintain a military force which is not only capable of crushing an invasion, but of striking a sufficiently powerful counterblow as to make in unattractive for would-be conquerors to try their luck with us.

Sounds to me like what we did with Japan.

[SpiffCoug]

I find myself gravitating more and more toward Ezra Taft Benson's perspective on foreign policy, but it's a slow and hard transition as a Top Gun-generation kid.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/ez ... gn-policy/

Dear Top Gun generation kid,
Can you give me that ETB blog post in 140 characters or less?
Sincerely,
a millennial generation kid

The proper function of government must be limited to a defensive role–the defense of individual citizens against bodily harm, theft and involuntary servitude at the hands of either domestic or foreign criminals. But to protect our people from bodily harm at the hands of foreign aggressors, we must maintain a military force which is not only capable of crushing an invasion, but of striking a sufficiently powerful counterblow as to make in unattractive for would-be conquerors to try their luck with us.

Sounds to me like what we did with Japan.

Sounds like it worked from August 8, 1945 to September 11, 2001 as well

[jvquarterback]

I find myself gravitating more and more toward Ezra Taft Benson's perspective on foreign policy, but it's a slow and hard transition as a Top Gun-generation kid.

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/ez ... gn-policy/

Dear Top Gun generation kid,
Can you give me that ETB blog post in 140 characters or less?
Sincerely,
a millennial generation kid

The USA should abandon all alliances with NATO and the UN, Saudi Arabia and Israel, France and England.

There shouldn't be any standing armies but we should have an armed populace ready to defend our free nation.