Comments for On President Hinckley's "War and Peace" at http://www.ldsfreemen.com , comment 1 to 7 out of 7 comments http://www.ldsfreemen.com Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:19:18 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/connor-boyack/on-president-hinckleys-war-and-peace.html#comment-200 George W. Bush cannot take all of the credit (or blame) for the debt and war we now labor under. It took cooperation from the remaining two branches of government, a powerfully influential lobbyist group, and a complacent public. President Hinckley's message was/is both inspired and timely. God help us to turn from our worldiness and focus our lives on the Savior. - Will Bluemel Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:00:32 +0100 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/connor-boyack/on-president-hinckleys-war-and-peace.html#comment-167 Tullius, I can respect your sincerity, but I agree with Marc. The actions of the bush administration demonstrate no respect whatsoever for principles of liberty and accountability. That man and his fellow puppets have abused the power vested in them and usurped even more power as they have brought the Constitution to the very brink of destruction. I don't believe that an educated and good hearted individual could ignorantly do the damage that has been done by the traitor named george w. bush. - Eric Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:09:00 +0100 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/connor-boyack/on-president-hinckleys-war-and-peace.html#comment-97 Tillius, It is clear from your statements that you have a lot to learn about current events, proper principles and the like. You mention that where much is given, much is required. This is true but when nations tax the people and give the proceeds to other nations in the form of aid, this is called socialism. Socialism has been condemned by prophets since the first vision. In extention of this principle i will remind you that America is bankrupt. We have more debt than any other country and for Mr. Bush to charge up these wars and foreign aid on a credit card which will then fall onto the backs of you and I, our children and grandchildren, is totally immoral. I find it interesting that Pres. Hinckley in both this talk and the 2001 "the times in which we live", he mentions the story of Capt. Moroni and the "title of liberty". This story by the way is a story of Moroni rallying the people against an internal threat "the Kingmen". This is the same threat we face today with Bush, Cheney and the other neocons. They are Kingmen working to undermine the "title of liberty" (our constitution). They seek to establish "the new world order" Satan's counterfeit to Christ's millienial reign. Do some research and find out for yourself. - Marc Thu, 08 May 2008 08:26:02 +0100 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/connor-boyack/on-president-hinckleys-war-and-peace.html#comment-35 Points to ponder: The "why we went in" discussion is moot. The fact is we're there and there are serious consequences to withdrawl for us and millions of Iraqis. The arugment, however, carries tremendous weight AFTER we've won the current conflict as to not engaging our countrymen in nation building again. Idealism verses realism is not the same argument as imperialism verses war on terrorism. The two arguments are indicative of two extremely different outlooks on the INTENTION of the United States and its leadership. Going into Iraq may have been a major tactical error, but it is not the same as colonialism to plant our flag on new territory. Polar opposite logic. The author accuses others "left and right" of using President Hinckley's words to further their cause, but then does so himself. It is important to note, there is a difference between warning "do not carry this attitude now or in the future" i.e. colonialism/imperialism, and "you are engaging in..." President Bush is a good man. I vehemently disagree with him on a number of issues regarding globalization and national sovereignty, but I believe him to be a decent man who loves his country. I am not a neocon. Despite the insinuation of the author that nationalists are something to be ashamed of, that's what I am. If it were up to me, The U.S. isolationism would dominate our foreign policy. We'd focus most all our spending and resources on needs within, but at what point is that simply selfish? At what point do you violate the "where much is given, much is required?" At what point are money and donations simply not enough, especially when it winds up in the hands of a vicious, powerful few? At what point do words, pleadings, and teachings fall short and the attempts at being merciful to the merciless wind up being unmerciful to the helpless? I don't have the answer, but I have valid questions. We know that at times good men and good nations must engage in more than talk. Captain Moroni did not raise the memo of liberty and draw out a blank golden plate to write a convincing argument to the King of the Lamanites. He drew his sword, he rallied his people with propoganda, and he fought. The tragedy of war is not that there are men willing to fight and men willing to send men to fight, but that men ignored the ambitious until there was no choice but to fight to preserve what was precious to them. Darfur, Somalia, the Balkans. Have you seen the perplexing blackness darkening the eyes of a man ready to kill for no reason? Have you felt the powerlessness at the feet of a group of men who would ravage children and murder their fathers? Have you wondered would it would be like to live in a place where there is no hope of escape from warring, roving bands of such men, where they infect the crumbling halls of government national and local? There are men who have, step by step, chosen to be monsters and to inflict horror on their fellow men for their own glory and pleasure. Is the good man justified in saying he doesn't beleive in violence and allows the rapist to rape, the murderer to murder, the beligerent to conquer and control? Is the good man to consider himself powerless because he is imperfect and flawed? At what point is the desire to adminster mercy simply a copout for cowardice? Again, I don't have the answers. The argument laid out here is a solid piece of linear reasoning. But the scope is just too big to come up with an irrefuteable conclusion. I've seen man's violence on man. There is nothing pleasurable about it. It is nothing to take lightly or to have a cavalier attitude toward. The big question is "when do we act?" Too many, we acted too soon. To many others, 911 was proof we engaged in a war on terror too late. As previously stated, I'm not a neocon, I'm not an idealistic nation builder. I actually really like the quote of President Benson used by the author. But also remember the quote President Hinckly used in the confrence talk referenced by the author in which he stated that the Nephites who endured the horrors of war did so with consideration of the liberties of their brethren. - Tullius Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:50:11 +0100 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/connor-boyack/on-president-hinckleys-war-and-peace.html#comment-29 Thanks, Jeremy. Timothy-Allen: care to elaborate? Or are you being sarcastic? - Connor Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:59:23 +0100 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/connor-boyack/on-president-hinckleys-war-and-peace.html#comment-26 This is apostasy!!! - Timothy-Allen Albertson Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:20:51 +0100 http://www.ldsfreemen.com/connor-boyack/on-president-hinckleys-war-and-peace.html#comment-21 Connor, As always, great insight. I can't wait to share this article with everybody who tells me President Hinckley clearly supported the War in Iraq and sends his "War and Peace" article to me as "proof". Of course, now that President Hinckley is unfortunately no longer with us, they will probably just ignore everything he said about liberty just like all the other "dead prophets". - Jeremy Ashton Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:53:17 +0100