Korean War And God

[urroner]

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?

Okay. God has commanded me to not KILL. Okay bcuzbcuz, I'll do it your way.

I will not KILL.

I will not KILL a human being even to defend myself, any person in my family, any person I know, or any person I don't know.

I will not KILL any animal nor plant in order to feed myself, any person in my family, any person I know, or any person I don't know.

God has commanded me to not KILL.

Did I understand you correctly bcuzbcuz?

[williamsmith]

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.

I've never actually known anyone saying such was/is "good". Can you name such?

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something that is less than perfect, but something still has to be done and "some" good can come out of it. That doesn't mean the thing itself is "good", only that some good can come from it, and that it's better than doing nothing at all.

Do you understand the difference?

For example, one political side believes that if you make friends and buddy up with people who want to kill you, that that is the way to make change, and anyone that does otherwise such as war to defend the innocent is actually the bad guy. Now, do you think that buddying up with bad guys is really any different than a strategic relationship with a leader that might be bad in other ways?

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.

The U.S. helped Bin-Laden and Afgan's against the Russians and they turned around and made us the enemy's. What did the U.S. actually do to deserve that? Nothing. Our existence, just like Israels existence makes the hate because of the ideology those people support. It's not that we actually did something bad. The U.S. could have done nothing at all in the world, and yet fanatical Islam would still hate us. Further, your argument fails for another reason. There are many peoples and places where we have been involved, militarily or otherwise in which those people are now our friends. Why don't they also hate us and want to destroy us? It's because they don't have religious/political brainwashing propaganda hate ideology.

What you need to understand is that when people hate, it doesn't matter what you do. And they exaggerate what you have done misrepresenting and lying about what you have done.

[williamsmith]

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.

1. Bible wars

2. Book of Mormon wars

3. The Flood

4. The War in Heaven

5. All other wars against whatever evil of the time by good people

6. And who knows how many others, other worlds, times, etc.

Billions? Easy...

[williamsmith]

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?

Exactly

[williamsmith]

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

The War in Heaven was not "evil". The Flood was not "evil". God's commands to war are not evil.

A gun is not evil, it's how it's used. Same with war.

[volgadon]

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.

Same thing goes for Argentina, I've met dozens upon dozens in Israel alone whose relatives disappeared under the military regime.

[volgadon]

The War in Heaven was not "evil". The Flood was not "evil". God's commands to war are not evil.

A gun is not evil, it's how it's used. Same with war.

The "War" in Heaven was not a war of flesh and blood, but even so, I don't think I could call it a good thing. Necessary, but definitely something that had God been able to avoid, he would have. Your gun analogy is actually a lot weaker than it looks. You don't intend on killing each time you shoot a gun, it is after used for recreation a lot, but only a handful of wars have ever been waged without bloodshed. Wars result in bloodshed, in destruction, in unrighteous dominion, in emotional, mental and spiritual scars that often never heal, and worst of all, create a cycle of vengeance and hatred that is nigh impossible to break. War is evil, period. Does that mean that I would never fight to defend my family and my home? Of course not. I believe that war (though rarely) is sometimes necessary, and I would fight if I had to, but an evil it remains.

[bcuzbcuz]

Okay. God has commanded me to not KILL. Okay bcuzbcuz, I'll do it your way.

I will not KILL.

I will not KILL a human being even to defend myself, any person in my family, any person I know, or any person I don't know.

I will not KILL any animal nor plant in order to feed myself, any person in my family, any person I know, or any person I don't know.

God has commanded me to not KILL.

Did I understand you correctly bcuzbcuz?

I'm not vegan, nor even vegetarian, but I have a daughter and a daughter-in-law who are. I do not understand how you define "I will not kill" as applying to animals for food. You would definitely belong to a minority that would hold that position as an interpretation of the "Thou shalt not kill"..

I do, however, strongly hold that I have no right to kill another human being. I left the US when the US government tried to draft me to Vietnam (no, I'm not American, never have been, but I was living and studying in the US in 1967 and was drafted in 1969.) I own weapons for hunting but would never consider turning them on a fellow human being, no matter what that person was doing.

Your statement of "I will not KILL a human being even to defend myself, any person in my family, any person I know, or any person I don't know." is a correct statement for my stance, although I suspect your statement was made in ridicule.

I have relatives who live in the US, who ar both Mormon and non-Mormon, who have weapons for self defense and for protection but we cannot ever discuss that issue since our viewpoints are literally worlds apart. They envision the need for weapons, dream and concieve scenarios for weapons, drool in anticipation for a chance to use their weapons on fellow human beings and go out and buy more weapons and ammo, "to be prepared". They live in fear.

I have chosen to live in a country where weapons are permitted for hunting but where we can go out at any hour of the day or night, right into the center of town, without fear of being mugged or threatened. My wife can travel by bus or subway home from town after a ladies night out and never fear of being harrassed or molested. We don't carry weapons for defense. We have no contingency plans, "in case". We don't play enact scenarios of rape or murder, because we live without fear.

Bad things can happen, but then there is a greater percentage chance that I will die from walking in front of a bus than being injured in a robbery. I don't have contingency plans for swinging out of the way of an on-coming bus, either.

Quite simply, I interpret "do not kill" to mean exactly that.

[bluebell]

I've never actually known anyone saying such was/is "good". Can you name such?

Oremite said that it was a good thing we backed anti-communist leaders, despite the atrocities that they committed. Bcuzbcuz said that the only criteria the U.S. looked for in whether or not to support a leader was if they were anti-communist, to which Oremite replied-

"Which turned out to be a good criterion.... I'd say history has vindicated the US involvement in Korea even though the people we were backing weren't "nice guys."

Sometimes doing the right thing means doing something that is less than perfect, but something still has to be done and "some" good can come out of it. That doesn't mean the thing itself is "good", only that some good can come from it, and that it's better than doing nothing at all.

I agree, but that's not what the U.S. did during the Cold War. They weren't trying to do 'the right thing'. They were trying to do anything that would weaken Russia and bring more money into the U.S.

Do you understand the difference?

I do understand what i am talking about as i've studied it extensively. You should think about doing the same, before you champion acts that you don't know anything about.

For example, one political side believes that if you make friends and buddy up with people who want to kill you, that that is the way to make change, and anyone that does otherwise such as war to defend the innocent is actually the bad guy. Now, do you think that buddying up with bad guys is really any different than a strategic relationship with a leader that might be bad in other ways?

I don't know how anyone can try to justify supporting evil people specifically because it gives your country more power and money, all while claiming that your country is after the bad guys because their leaders are 'evil'. It's hypocrisy at it's finest and there is no righteous way to support it.

The U.S. helped Bin-Laden and Afgan's against the Russians and they turned around and made us the enemy's.

An excellent example of how the U.S. would do anything to weaken the Russians, even if it meant supporting groups of people that were fundamentally against everything the U.S. stood for.

That dumb decision came back to bite the U.S. in the butt, but stupidity often does that.

What did the U.S. actually do to deserve that? Nothing.

They U.S. gave guns and support to a group of Islamic radical zealots that believed western values and culture to be evil. You can't be that dumb and not suffer negative consequences.

Our existence, just like Israels existence makes the hate because of the ideology those people support.

Exactly. So maybe, knowing that as we did, giving them guns and training makes us less victims than you are trying to portray us.

It's not that we actually did something bad. The U.S. could have done nothing at all in the world, and yet fanatical Islam would still hate us. Further, your argument fails for another reason. There are many peoples and places where we have been involved, militarily or otherwise in which those people are now our friends. Why don't they also hate us and want to destroy us? It's because they don't have religious/political brainwashing propaganda hate ideology.

I'm not trying to be mean, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

What you need to understand is that when people hate, it doesn't matter what you do. And they exaggerate what you have done misrepresenting and lying about what you have done.

Please, do some studying. Like i said, you can go right to the national security archives (they are online) and check out what the U.S. was doing during the cold war-many of those classified documents have been released and you can look things up using key words like 'bay of pigs invasion' or whatever. It's obviously not an exhaustive source but it's an easy place to start. Books have been recommended in this thread that will also help you to understand the facts of the issues.

Edited October 5, 2012 by bluebell

[bcuzbcuz]

The U.S. helped Bin-Laden and Afgan's against the Russians and they turned around and made us the enemy's. What did the U.S. actually do to deserve that? Nothing.

Probably your definition of "Nothing", that the US did or does, and my definition of "Nothing", of what the US did, are very far apart. If you travel a lot outside the US, in either South or Central America or Europe or Africa or Asia you will find that not everybody paints a rosy picture of the virtues of the US. The "Nothing" that you think the US is doing is actually quite a lot and many of those "Nothings" not only cause irritation but actual hardships and, in some cases, deaths of innocents. People tend to get quite upset when their loved ones are killed.

The US has bombed 20+ countries since the end of WW II. A good number of deaths have also been due to clandestine US involvement in another long list of countries. The US is doing a lot of "Nothings" that make the US hated.

[Calm]

The U.S. helped Bin-Laden and Afgan's against the Russians and they turned around and made us the enemy's. What did the U.S. actually do to deserve that? Nothing.

It would be nice if this was true. The US may not have deserved the level of response it got, but it was not an innocent bystander. Edited October 5, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

When we moved to Canada I was surprised by the numbers of Canadians who hated the us government. It wasn't jealousy either, it was the way the US tried to muscle Canada into making laws that would favour US companies over Canadian ones along with several other ways the US attempted to pressure Canada into 'seeing things' the way the US gov wanted them to while in return giving Canada little respect.

I was very disappointed in how the US was treating what should have been its strongest friend.

[bcuzbcuz]

When we moved to Canada I was surprised by the numbers of Canadians who hated the us government. It wasn't jealousy either, it was the way the US tried to muscle Canada into making laws that would favour US companies over Canadian ones along with several other ways the US attempted to pressure Canada into 'seeing things' the way the US gov wanted them to while in return giving Canada little respect.

I was very disappointed in how the US was treating what should have been its strongest friend.

An excellent point. Canada is my homeland, although I haven't lived there for many years since moving back to Europe, but what you say is absolutely true. There are Canadians who think the US is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I grew up there with a good deal of awareness for how the US bullies its younger cousin. My mother, who converted to Mormonism, had the opinion that the US was blessed by God and following my parents divorce moved to the US and became an American with the typical blinders to US wrongdoing. My father, non-Mormon socialist that he was, to his dying day, did not have many good words for the US nor its conservative politics and warmongering. Obviously, politics and religion were not topics around our dinner table while I was growing up.

Understandably, the US puts its own interests first, but often doesn't care who it tramples on to get what it wants. Canada and Mexico are simply larders, cheap labour and storage space for the American public. "Manifest destiny" is alive and well in the minds of a great many Americans.

[rodheadlee]

1. Bible wars

2. Book of Mormon wars

3. The Flood

4. The War in Heaven

5. All other wars against whatever evil of the time by good people

6. And who knows how many others, other worlds, times, etc.

Billions? Easy...

That's not a proper answer to a CFR. You have to cite chapter and verse to back your statement that "God has sent billions to their death by war."

The Flood, if there even was a world wide flood, was a natural disaster and everyone had a choice get on the ark or don't.

The War in Heaven, nobody was killed. They didn't even have bodies, they were cast down to earth.

Also, If I don't believe in God all I see is a bunch of men killing each other in the name of God.

[Stargazer]

There can be much good that comes about because of a war, even if that war was waged and won by an unrighteous leader or people. The problem is, this is sometimes difficult to see unless one can take a long view of it.

The Pax Romana, for instance, was a 200 year long period of relative peace and stability in the Mediterranean world, that was, counterintuitively, brought about because of Roman unrighteous dominion and need to secure their expansive borders. The peace was kept because Rome had overwhelming military and economic power, and willing to use both powers at need, and at will. It is perhaps the prime example of the old adage and seeming oxymoron: "If you want peace, prepare for war."

It is the Pax Romana that enabled Christianity to spread as well as it did, and this is largely because there was one set of laws that held sway in the entire geographic area, and it was a set of laws that was in fact if not friendly to new ideas, was at least tolerant of them. Imperial Rome was in many ways one of the most pluralistic societies in the ancient world. If the Med had been nothing but a crazy quilt of competing polities, then it is unlikely that Christianity would have spread at all. I have no doubt that the rise of Rome came about precisely because God needed such a power in the earth in order to bring His Son's gospel to the whole earth.

And much like Imperial Rome was the incubator of the Primitive Christian Church, the United States was and still is the incubator of the Latter-day Christian Church.

The Revolutionary War and the Constitution are both products of divine inspiration, and if you don't believe it, well, you better check your Doctrine and Covenants.

And that old saw that goes something like "fighting never solved anything"? Utter and complete B.S. Fighting has settled more hash than any number of treaties written on paper ever hoped to do. Just ask any leader of any Indian tribes in the United States.

[bcuzbcuz]

There can be much good that comes about because of a war, even if that war was waged and won by an unrighteous leader or people. The problem is, this is sometimes difficult to see unless one can take a long view of it.

The Pax Romana, for instance, was a 200 year long period of relative peace and stability in the Mediterranean world, that was, counterintuitively, brought about because of Roman unrighteous dominion and need to secure their expansive borders. The peace was kept because Rome had overwhelming military and economic power, and willing to use both powers at need, and at will. It is perhaps the prime example of the old adage and seeming oxymoron: "If you want peace, prepare for war."

It is the Pax Romana that enabled Christianity to spread as well as it did, and this is largely because there was one set of laws that held sway in the entire geographic area, and it was a set of laws that was in fact if not friendly to new ideas, was at least tolerant of them. Imperial Rome was in many ways one of the most pluralistic societies in the ancient world. If the Med had been nothing but a crazy quilt of competing polities, then it is unlikely that Christianity would have spread at all. I have no doubt that the rise of Rome came about precisely because God needed such a power in the earth in order to bring His Son's gospel to the whole earth.

And much like Imperial Rome was the incubator of the Primitive Christian Church, the United States was and still is the incubator of the Latter-day Christian Church.

The Revolutionary War and the Constitution are both products of divine inspiration, and if you don't believe it, well, you better check your Doctrine and Covenants.

And that old saw that goes something like "fighting never solved anything"? Utter and complete B.S. Fighting has settled more hash than any number of treaties written on paper ever hoped to do. Just ask any leader of any Indian tribes in the United States.

I'm not quite sure what to make of your post, other than if you stand far enough away, blood spatter from innocents killed in wars takes on a rosy coloured glow to it. "It's all good.", as the hip youth say.

I'd rather not stand that far removed from events that I lose all focus on the matters at hand. I'd rather put events under a microscope than the blurred vision of looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

The constitution of the US and its governments were the very people behind the broken treaties with the native peoples you mention in your text. I lived and worked for eight years on reservations and no glossed over historical whitewash can pretty up the modern day tragedies that the wars of extinction, the so-called Indian Wars, created and continue to form through dysfunctional management and racial policies.

[Carborendum]

I'm old enough to remember who the top dog was in South Korea when South Korea was formed, Syngman Rhee. He was Not a nice guy. Park Chung-hee, Choi Kyu-hah, then Chun Doo-hwan would hardly qualify as shining examples of democratic leaders, either.

I'm Korean by birth. I'll agree and disagree with this characterization.

The thing is that I know American standards of benevolent leadership. They did not qualify--true. But I also know the Korean mindset. We are much more violent than Americans are used to. We're just much more Old Testament style. But it is still based on justice and doing what is right. We're just mean and intolerant about it.

Yet it is based on Christian principles. I know it may be different for Americans to understand. But you can't use US standards to judge Koreans accurately. We simply have a different temperament.

[Calm]

I've been watching kdramas lately. The difference in culture/temperament makes for interesting viewing....though the purely romance stuff is boring for me whether it's Korean or English.

[bcuzbcuz]

I'm Korean by birth. I'll agree and disagree with this characterization.

The thing is that I know American standards of benevolent leadership. They did not qualify--true. But I also know the Korean mindset. We are much more violent than Americans are used to. We're just much more Old Testament style. But it is still based on justice and doing what is right. We're just mean and intolerant about it.

Yet it is based on Christian principles. I know it may be different for Americans to understand. But you can't use US standards to judge Koreans accurately. We simply have a different temperament.

I have a daughter-in-law who is Korean and I'm not sure she would endorse your depiction of the Korean people as being mean and intolerant. Unless, of course, you mean the real, home-made, super spicy, kimchi. That stuff is truly mean and belligerent.

But I wasn't basing my premise of South Korean dictatorships and military take-overs on Korean standards of justice and fairness, but only in reference to how the American governments of the 1950's through 1980's endorsed these dictatorships and ignored their atrocities as defined by American standards. No matter what the Korean people of that time thought of their governments they did not qualify as democracies of the western model.

[volgadon]

I have a daughter-in-law who is Korean and I'm not sure she would endorse your depiction of the Korean people as being mean and intolerant. Unless, of course, you mean the real, home-made, super spicy, kimchi. That stuff is truly mean and belligerent.

I love that stuff, I've even made it, but one day in a marketplace in Rostov, Russia, a Korean lady decided to try her hard sale approach to Kimchi on me. "Young man! Come here immediately and buy kimchi! Now! Where do you think you are going, I said come here and buy, now!"

[Carborendum]

I have a daughter-in-law who is Korean and I'm not sure she would endorse your depiction of the Korean people as being mean and intolerant. Unless, of course, you mean the real, home-made, super spicy, kimchi. That stuff is truly mean and belligerent.

LOL

Ironically, that is a perfect metaphor. I love kim chee. I don't see a problem with it. But I'm used to it. It's in my blood (sometimes literally) . I often have cravings for it when I haven't had it in a while. Yet, many Americans have such a delicate palette and tummy that they have difficulty with it. And don't forget that smell...

You might recall that judge that took a belt to his daughter for some sort of misbehavior. Then it got put on youtube. Americans are quick to cry out "ABUSE!" People are calling for his removal.

In Korea, this would be perfectly acceptable and normal. No one would be calling for a judge to be removed because of it.

In my personal experience, my biological father (I was adopted) was abusive even by Korean societal standards. Yet he was not guilty of any civil crime. It was his right as father and husband to behave the way he did.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Carborendum