Stone holm Posted December 16, 2014 Author Posted December 16, 2014 I think Eisenhower stressed the point in his farewell address, and in private indicated he was concerned what would happen if the defense budget got in the hands of people who did not understand how the military worked -- and he wasn't talking about such people reducing the defense budget, he was talking about people expanding the defense budget. Originally the conservative position on American involvement in war was to oppose it, the conservatives favored isolationism -- but Eisenhower's farewell address pretty much prophetically nailed what he expected would happen. Now conservatives have abandoned isolationism, so we really don't have anyone championing isolationism anymore. There were of course moral issues involved with isolationism -- but I don't think we abandoned it because of moral issues. So where is the moral and ethical discussion of such things as isolationism in religious forums?
Calm Posted December 16, 2014 Posted December 16, 2014 (edited) All the LDS vets I know are hardly "gung ho" about war. Nor do I know many LDS who long for the US to be out there in combat.The vets themselves joined out of a desire to serve and protect mostly. They do not glamorise the fighting.Can you point out one other profession where wearing white consistently makes you a target for others attempting to kill you?There are special garments allowed for those with health problems. It is not only the military that gets an exception for practical safety reasons. Edited December 16, 2014 by calmoriah 1
Recommended Posts