Paul,

Yes.

What's your point ? Because an aggressor loses more troops, that therefore they are somehow the injured party ? I think they call that 'consequentialism'.

If you don't want casualties, don't start a war, don't INTEND to start a war, because the attacked party is quite within its rights to gather its allies and inflict more damage on your boys.

If you don't want unintended consequences, don't start a war. If only Nathan could grasp that.

Joe

Paul,

I do mean that the UN was justified in resisting the invasion of South Korea and history has shewn that it was just.
Of course I may be a bit biased, I just received an invitation from the Republic of Korea Embassy to an on board luncheon on the ROKS "CHOIYOUNG", being a Korean War veteran.

I still wear the Blue Beret, with pride, on appropriate occasions.

Is Mise, I am pleased that you were a survivor of war and can wear your Blue Beret, with pride. I detest everything about war, the senseless death and destruction that it brings to both non-combatants and combatants alike. Given the present and past level of human development war will continue indefinitely. We may have advanced in so many areas of human endeavor, modern science and technology makes the achievements of yesteryear seem rather minuscule, but when it comes to our personal relationships with each other we seem to have advanced little over the centuries.

<<Because an aggressor loses more troops, that therefore they are somehow the injured party?>> Joe, call it what you like, 36,000 Americans were killed in Korea, that's 36,000 too many by my way of thinking. Clearly Japan was an aggressor in WWII, Australia was an aggressor in Vietnam, some find that an uncomfortable truth about Australia, but its a fact. Regardless of who is the aggressor or who is not, is immaterial, when it comes to those killed, people died for no good reason in both of those wars and in all other wars.
I fully understand what you say <<But the fact remains that, once a non-aggressive country is attacked, it has the right, really the duty, to defend itself, to protect its inhabitants from further aggression.>> That is obvious, just as obvious as if you were walking down the street minding your own business and a complete stranger attacked you from out of the blue. However in many wars its not so clear cut as to who is the aggressor and who is the aggressed. Maybe the only ones who have the right to wage war are those with god on their side.

Paul,

Do you detest the prosperity and freedom that the Koreans south of the DMZ enjoy?

Have a look at Google Earth and see the difference between the two parts of Korea, the night views are especially illuminating (pun intended).

Is Mise, your misunderstanding what I am saying. "The ends justify the means". No matter how good the end outcome is, in this case freedom for South Koreans, relative to North Koreans, which is very desirable and very good. That outcome in itself does not make the means used, in this case war, good also. The outcome is good, but the means is bad, given human nature as it was and still is, could the same good outcome be achieved without bad war, probably not. There is no relationship good or bad between, means and outcome in my opinion, others could argue differently. Obviously, a bad means giving a good outcome is more desirable than a bad means with a bad outcome, but the best result is achieved with a good means which results in a good outcome.

Paul,

There was no other way of stopping North Korea other than killing North Koreans, just as in Melbourne a few days ago the stabbed policeman had no alternative to killing his assailant, therefore it was good that he was armed likewise it was good that the UN came to the assistance of South Korea. It was a good war and the continued aggressive attitude of the North and the way that they treat their people shews that it was a good war.