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

[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 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

Sounds like you're doing exactly what President Clark was preaching against in your approval at that fiendish butchery.

[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 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.

This is wonderful thinking that gets people killed. And millions of them. Tell you what, we should do this around the world. Let's start with every other country. And once every other country has disbanded their army THEN the USA will disband ours.

Sorry, jvqb, but this is an extremely dangerous and naive position that bet even Elder Clark wouldn't have endorsed.

[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

Sounds like you're doing exactly what President Clark was preaching against in your approval at that fiendish butchery.

Then please reconcile what Elder Clark said with what Elder Benson said. Because the two seem diametrically opposed to one another.

[BroncoBot]

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

Sounds like you're doing exactly what President Clark was preaching against in your approval at that fiendish butchery.

Then please reconcile what Elder Clark said with what Elder Benson said. Because the two seem diametrically opposed to one another.

I don't read anything from Pres. Benson regarding the bombing of innocent Japanese. "...Striking a sufficiently powerful counterblow..." doesn't seem to endorse use of atomic weapons against civilians. Maybe I'm not reading it correctly.

Let me ask you this, if you are ok with using it against Japan, are you ok with using it in the middle east currently? Vietnam? Just wondering where the line is drawn for you?

I find bombing of Japan incredibly shortsighted. It is little more than a terrorist attack when innocent civilians, women and children are targeted.

[Mars]

Did the taking of many lives prevent the loss of even more lives? I'm not sure, but if so, it's difficult to argue against it.

Besides that, isolationism really is the best policy. The U.S. could probably cut military spending by 99%. And stop providing weapons to foreign countries!

[HoosierCougar]

Question: If the Japanese empire was not willing to stop their pursuit of power after the first A-bomb, would a carpet bombing of Nagasaki have produced the same result we realized from dropping a second nuke?

[hawkwing]

This is a talk I've thought often on since it was first given.

By President Gordon B. Hinckley, April 2003 conference. The following is a quote, you can read the whole thing https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... e?lang=eng

As far as I can remember this is the most recent words of the Prophet on war and conflict so it carries the most weight.

The question arises, “Where does the Church stand in all of this?”

First, let it be understood that we have no quarrel with the Muslim people or with those of any other faith. We recognize and teach that all the people of the earth are of the family of God. And as He is our Father, so are we brothers and sisters with family obligations one to another.

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. Those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign. When they joined the military service, they entered into a contract by which they are presently bound and to which they have dutifully responded.

One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12).

But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).

In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).

And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

“And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12–13).

It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34).

This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

[jvquarterback]

Did the taking of many lives prevent the loss of even more lives?

In a word no. If Truman had been worried about the lives of American serviceman he would have accepted the Japanese surrender three months earlier and allowed emperor hirohito to stay on in a ceremonial role. He probably could have saved the lives of the 10000 Americans who died during those three months.

Instead he murdered 150000 women, children, cripples,and the elderly. And when the Japanese had the nerve to all hold out for a couple terms of surrender he murdered another 150000 women, children, and cripples.

[SpiffCoug]

Instead he murdered 150000 women, children, cripples,and the elderly. And when the Japanese had the nerve to all hold out for a couple terms of surrender he murdered another 150000 women, children, and cripples.

This almost matches the number of atrocities committed by the Japanese. To a certain extent, it could be argued, the atomic bombs were a punishment for some of their more heinous acts - especially in China.

[jvquarterback]

Instead he murdered 150000 women, children, cripples,and the elderly. And when the Japanese had the nerve to all hold out for a couple terms of surrender he murdered another 150000 women, children, and cripples.

This almost matches the number of atrocities committed by the Japanese. To a certain extent, it could be argued, the atomic bombs were a punishment for some of their more heinous acts - especially in China.

Well that sounds like justice. The Japanese Emperor and his Imperial Army murdered and raped millions of innocents so Truman murdered hundreds of thousands of people who had no idea what was going on.

Sounds like a winning discipline plan. Why don't you tell us how it works with your children?