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

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.

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

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.

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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-policy/

snoscythe wrote:
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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-policy/

Dear Top Gun generation kid,

Can you give me that ETB blog post in 140 characters or less?

Sincerely,

a millennial generation kid

HoosierCougar wrote:

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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-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.

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.

SpiffCoug wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-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.

hawkwing wrote:

HoosierCougar wrote:

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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-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

HoosierCougar wrote:

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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-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.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-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.

jvquarterback wrote:

snoscythe wrote:
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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-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.

jvquarterback wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

HoosierCougar wrote:

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/ezra-taft-benson/united-states-foreign-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.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

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.

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!

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?

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/2003/04/war-and-peace?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.

Mars wrote:
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.

jvquarterback wrote:

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.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Mars wrote:
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?