Korean War And God

[Duncan]

I fear I may have re-started the Korean War! haha! As always I very much appreciate everyone's insights! What involvement do you think God has in all this?

[blackstrap]

For some the first Iraq war was "good" in that it was a response to an unprovoked attack on an innocent and relatively unarmed ally.( several of those words can be debated of course ) . The second Iraq war was " not so good" in that the US or its allies were not attacked directly. It was pre-emptive. Such wars are to be avoided according to the BoM.

[williamsmith]

I fear I may have re-started the Korean War! haha! As always I very much appreciate everyone's insights! What involvement do you think God has in all this?

I think it's as I mentioned earlier. God inspires good men to serve to protect others, and that can include war. I have known and am myself some very righteous and wise men in life who have been warriors for peace. The man who is willing to lay his life down for his brother is God's own. They are men who I've seen also have some of the most tender of hearts, of love of others. This idea that "war" is of evil, is simply a perversion of the true principle. War is only evil when it is actually evil. When it's for others and strives to follow the above rules, there is nothing evil about it.

[williamsmith]

I should mention also that there is a "war" occurring for mens souls, and it's a real war, just as real as any physical war. Deaths occurs, innocents are taken and corrupted, etc. War in life is in likeness of the war within or in heaven, there is no actual difference. Thus, this is why war can be for good or for evil. When the war in Heaven was won was there consequences? Yes. And likewise here.

I recently read that having Police is not an evil thing, and it is not evil what they do. Likewise, war is only a "larger" police action and thus when done for honorable reasons like having police officers, an action of war is just as justified. People often complained we shouldn't be "policemen of the world". Well, I say, do you really understand what you are being critical of? So, good people who what the power and authority of police action should simply stand by and do nothing? Nay, THAT kind of belief is what is evil, and is exactly why evil people of the world even have power.

[bluebell]

Sometimes the ends do justify the means, sometimes they don't.

I actually agree.

But there is something very callous about saying that it's good that the U.S. backed evil dictators who quite literally killed thousands of innocent people because communism was stopped.

It's easy to talk about how great the U.S. actions were during the cold war, when it was other people making all the sacrifices and you're reaping all the benefits. But then, most of the people that talk that way, have no idea the breadth or depth of the evil that the U.S. was supporting. Nor do they understand that U.S. actions often created the threats to begin with-threats that would never have even existed if the U.S. government had actually practiced some of the humanitary efforts they preached during those years.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bluebell

[volgadon]

Naturally, the best way to prevent Communism from taking away people's freedoms, illegally arresting, brutally torturing and murdering thousands of dissidents is to back local dictators who take away people's freedoms, illegally arresting, brutally torturing and murdering thousands of dissidents. Iron-clad logic and a moral compass always pointing in the right direction...

[volgadon]

I agree.

All i'm saying is that the U.S. rarely (if ever) get's involved in wars because the innocent need help. And i'm not saying that to disparage the U.S. because i love my country and in many ways i am very proud of it. I say it because it's just a fact. It's not a secret, the information is plentiful and very available. If you go to the National Security Archives you can oftentimes read it right from the actual memos, letters, CIA and Embassy wires it was printed on.

The U.S., especially during the cold war, fought wars to protect it's own interests. In fact, it routinely supported leaders who killed innocents, because those men also protected the interests of the U.S.

It IS unfortunate-not that the truth is known, but that it ever happened in the first place.

Do you have some book recommendations? I've been interested in this topic for years.

[volgadon]

War itself is not evil

War is always evil. It sometimes is necessary, but that doesn't make it good.

[volgadon]

http://www.classicshorts.com/stories/sniper.html

[rodheadlee]

God has sent billions to their deaths by war. .

You have a standing CFR for this statement. According to board rules you have to Cite Frequent References or retract your statement.

I don't believe Heavenly Father has sent billions to their death by war. I believe he allows war to happen to bring wickedness to it's fullfillment. I believe he may help the righteous win a war or withhold His help if they have forgotten Him and turned their backs on Him.

[oremites]

Is it justifiable to knowingly support evil if some good comes of it?

Since we're talking about the Korean war, how was fighting for the Korean people knowingly supporting evil? Their "evil" leaders come and go, but the South Korean people are better off than the North Korean.

Wouldn't sitting back and watching them be enslaved be a form of knowingly supporting evil?

[SamIam]

The bigger picture is how do you know what comes from God or not? isn't there a scripture about warning people to not call evil good and good evil, it's hard to distinguish what is what

The classic scripture story for this principle is Rehoboem an Jeroboem. The tribes have split into two groups the ten tribes are with Jeroboem in the northern area. They have become very wicked and Rehoboem, not very good himself. decides to reclaim them from their idolatrous ways and reunite Israel. Rehoboem makes his battles plans and then the record states:

1 Kings 12:21-24

21 And when Rehoboam was come to Jerusalem, he assembled all the house of Judah, with the tribe of Benjamin, an hundred and fourscore thousand chosen men, which were warriors, to fight against the house of Israel, to bring the kingdom again to Rehoboam the son of Solomon.

22 But the word of God came unto Shemaiah the man of God, saying,

23 Speak unto Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, king of Judah, and unto all the house of Judah and Benjamin, and to the remnant of the people, saying,

24 Thus saith the Lord, Ye shall not go up, nor fight against your brethren the children of Israel: return every man to his house; for this thing is from me. They hearkened therefore to the word of the Lord, and returned to depart, according to the word of the Lord.

So even while Rehoboem's intent was to reunite Israel and punish them for their idolatry, the Lord tells him to back off as this state of affairs is of him...from this point is the diaspora and the Abrahamic Covenant is upheld as from this state of wickedness the world is blessed with the blood of Abraham being carried throughout the world.

For me this example illustrates there is nothing that is not within the Lord's hand and ability to shape to his purposes.

[volgadon]

Since we're talking about the Korean war, how was fighting for the Korean people knowingly supporting evil? Their "evil" leaders come and go, but the South Korean people are better off than the North Korean.

Wouldn't sitting back and watching them be enslaved be a form of knowingly supporting evil?

Macarthur's suppression of reporting on South Korean atrocities, for instance, or the large number of Japanese collaborators the US supported, as they wereanti-Communist.

[bluebell]

Do you have some book recommendations? I've been interested in this topic for years.

As i said, my area of focus was Latin America so most of the specific books I have read were about that part of the world.

Some that might be of interest to you are:

The Massacre at El Mozote by Mark Danner (I have to warn you though that it's a difficult book to read because of the subject manner-it's very explicit and doesn't back off, even when children were the victims)

The Condor Years: How Pinochet and his allies brought terrorism to three continents by John Dinges (Hint, the U.S. was a huge ally of Pinochet. This book is awesome because it's documentation can't be argued with-though that does make it tough reading sometimes as it can get boring slogging through all the references).

All my books are still packed in boxes so i'll have to go through them and see if there is anything else. Some other areas of interest to study in general would be U.S. dealings with Castro and how, because of economic greed, the U.S. forced him into becoming an ally with Russia to save Cuba, and also the U.S. relationship with Ho Chi Minh before the Vietnam war and how US. relations with France were what started the war, and not freeing vietnam from evil leaders. In fact, the U.S. previous to the war, gave Minh a medal for his work in his country and promised to support him because he was doing exactly what the U.S. claimed it cared about, working towards the protection of human rights in his country.

[bluebell]

Since we're talking about the Korean war, how was fighting for the Korean people knowingly supporting evil? Their "evil" leaders come and go, but the South Korean people are better off than the North Korean.

Wouldn't sitting back and watching them be enslaved be a form of knowingly supporting evil?

I don't believe that fighting for a group of people is evil, but during the 1950s and 60s, the U.S. desire to fight against communism, more often than not, had little to do with fighting for anything other than U.S. interests.

The U.S. did not care one whit about the Korean people, they just didn't want Russia to gain any more strength in that part of the world. If it had been more beneficial to let Korea burn to the ground, the U.S. government would have lit the match in those years. Politically there was too much at stake to let human rights get in the way. This is what allowed so many atrocities to occur during the war. What mattered was beating Russia, not helping the Korean people.

However, i have no doubts that many on the ground during the Korean War very much wanted to help the Korean people and believed that they were (and literally were, in many cases). Who knows the extent of the good that might have been done if the U.S. government had actually cared more about that at the time. It is concievable that North Korea might not exist as it does today, if the U.S. had practiced what it preached during those years.

[oremites]

The U.S. did not care one whit about the Korean people

Just to clarify, I assume you mean the U.S. government. And you're right, they didn't care. Governments are by nature uncaring, self-serving, oppressive, tyrannical, etc.

You seem bothered by the fact that the U.S. government wasn't acting from pure and noble intentions. I'm just glad something good came out of the whole thing because, until Christ comes to reign personally, there is never going to be a government acting with pure and noble intentions.

And I'm supposed to be bothered by the fact the South Korean politicians were dishonest, greedy and power-hungry? What politician isn't? The only hope is to establish some system to rein in those politicians as much as possible. Would you rather live under a corrupt South Korean politician or a corrupt North Korean politician? It's not the politician that makes the difference as much as the system.

The fact that the Korean war ended as it did with a divided country gives us a chance to see what would happen if either side had won. To me, the results speak loud and clear.

It is concievable that North Korea might not exist as it does today, if the U.S. had practiced what it preached during those years.

A lot of things are conceivable, but, basically, North Korea exists as it does today because the communists won there.

[bluebell]

You seem bothered by the fact that the U.S. government wasn't acting from pure and noble intentions.

It's the hypocrisy that bothers me. Supporting horrific governments secretly for power while publicly pretending to care about people seems like a pretty obvious thing to be bothered about.

I'm guessing that if such a government ever came for your spouse or children, you'd suddenly be bothered by it as well.

I'm just glad something good came out of the whole thing because, until Christ comes to reign personally, there is never going to be a government acting with pure and noble intentions.

I agree that it is good that some good can come out of it. I'm not going to ignore the bad that occurred though. As i said before, i personally see that as a self-serving and callous way to function.

And I'm supposed to be bothered by the fact the South Korean politicians were dishonest, greedy and power-hungry? What politician isn't? The only hope is to establish some system to rein in those politicians as much as possible.

The U.S. established politcal systems which made it easier for those corrupt politicians to rule and did everything in their power to make sure they stayed in power as long as possible. Again, seems like a pretty obvious thing to be bothered by.

Would you rather live under a corrupt South Korean politician or a corrupt North Korean politician? It's not the politician that makes the difference as much as the system.

That seems to be a completely unsupported statement. Cuba and North Korea are both communist countries, right? Yet they have very little in common. This would seem to be because the leader and politicians have the most impact, not the ideological system.

The fact that the Korean war ended as it did with a divided country gives us a chance to see what would happen if either side had won. To me, the results speak loud and clear.

No it doesn't.

A lot of things are conceivable, but, basically, North Korea exists as it does today because the communists won there.

That's also completely unsupported. The communists won in Vietnam yet did it turn out like North Korea? No.

[bcuzbcuz]

My area of study dealt with latin american countries during the cold war. For Americans, especially the American government in the 1960's, being anti-communist was pretty much the only criterion that was looked for.

As you know, we'd practically let dictators assassinate americans in our own country, and barely bat an eye when they massacred their own people, if those dictators were against communism. That's not the history that is taught in school though, so many Americans have no idea what was actually going on.

My wife fled Chilé after Pinochet violently took over the country with the full support of the CIA. The turning point for her was when a friend, equally politically active, was given a helicopter ride courtesy of the Chiléan militia. He was given a choice of signing a paper admitting to actions against the government or being tossed out the door. He signed and lost his teaching position but kept his life.

Chilé of today is a wonderful, vibrant country but we wonder if it couldn't have been ever more wonderful if only so many lives hadn't been wasted needlessly and so many, tens of thousands of well educated people hadn't fled the country in fear of their lives. The government of the US denied and denies any wrongdoing. Pinochet was, after all, anti-communist.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I don't think that God caused the war, but made as much good come out of a horrible thing as possible.

Correct, it is always darkest before the dawn.

[Walden]

As i said, my area of focus was Latin America so most of the specific books I have read were about that part of the world.

Some that might be of interest to you are:

The Massacre at El Mozote by Mark Danner (I have to warn you though that it's a difficult book to read because of the subject manner-it's very explicit and doesn't back off, even when children were the victims)

The Condor Years: How Pinochet and his allies brought terrorism to three continents by John Dinges (Hint, the U.S. was a huge ally of Pinochet. This book is awesome because it's documentation can't be argued with-though that does make it tough reading sometimes as it can get boring slogging through all the references).

All my books are still packed in boxes so i'll have to go through them and see if there is anything else. Some other areas of interest to study in general would be U.S. dealings with Castro and how, because of economic greed, the U.S. forced him into becoming an ally with Russia to save Cuba, and also the U.S. relationship with Ho Chi Minh before the Vietnam war and how US. relations with France were what started the war, and not freeing vietnam from evil leaders. In fact, the U.S. previous to the war, gave Minh a medal for his work in his country and promised to support him because he was doing exactly what the U.S. claimed it cared about, working towards the protection of human rights in his country.

Just wanted to add another book to the list that bluebell mentioned above.

Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & Project Truth is a book by investigative journalist Robert Parry, who was part of the team of reporters that broke the Iran-Contra scandal. The book goes into great detail about the evil men propped up by the US government in Central America during the 1970s and 1980s, the vast amounts of both clandestine murders and overt massacres perpetrated by US supported "leaders", as well as the involvement of the CIA in drug trafficking to help provide funding for the contras. It also discusses the machinations of different government agencies in controlling the dialogue in the media. A fascinating read indeed.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Walden

[blackstrap]

Have you ever doubted who is " the god of this world " ? I watched first hand the involvement of the CIA in Guatemala. Some may say it was the lesser of 2 evils. I'm not too sure but I know the world does not need another Castro or Pol Pot etc.

Edited October 4, 2012 by blackstrap

[bcuzbcuz]

Which turned out to be a good criterion. Look what communism has done for North Korea vs. what has happened in South Korea. I'd say history has vindicated the US involvement in Korea even though the people we were backing weren't "nice guys."

I'm afraid your opinion that merely being anti-communist is enough to qualify as a friend is sadly lacking in nuance. The ends do not justify the means.

[bcuzbcuz]

In the battle of Good vs Evil in this world,this is the criteria . If we kill them , that is good. If they kill us,that is evil. It's just that simple.

It's hard to know if you're being sarcastic or not. Doesn't the Bible say "Thou shalt not kill"? Doesn't the DnC say, "Thou shalt not kill"? When did that change to it being OK to kill, as long as you kill the right guy?

[bcuzbcuz]

Naturally, the best way to prevent Communism from taking away people's freedoms, illegally arresting, brutally torturing and murdering thousands of dissidents is to back local dictators who take away people's freedoms, illegally arresting, brutally torturing and murdering thousands of dissidents. Iron-clad logic and a moral compass always pointing in the right direction...

I agree totally

[MiserereNobis]

Naturally, the best way to prevent Communism from taking away people's freedoms, illegally arresting, brutally torturing and murdering thousands of dissidents is to back local dictators who take away people's freedoms, illegally arresting, brutally torturing and murdering thousands of dissidents. Iron-clad logic and a moral compass always pointing in the right direction...

From Phil Ochs' "Talking Vietnam":

Threw all the people in relocation camps

Under lock and key, made damn sure they're free