Obama's desire to "talk" with our enemies

[Ronda Hinrichsen]

What do you all think? If someone is willing to "talk" with their enemies, doesn't that usually mean willing to compromise? In my opinion, compromise is NOT something we can do in most of these terror oriented issues.

[yourLDSneighborhood]

I have to agree with you, Ronda. It's pretty scary how naive and inexperienced Obama is. America has enemies whose only desire is complete destruction of America and her people. He sympathizes with that side and for some reason, truly doesn't understand, at least I hope he doesn't understand, how huge a mistake that would be for America.

[Candace E. Salima]

It's pretty scary, Ronda. The closer we come to the election the more I hope that the liberal media is skewing the polls. I know they've already declared him as the next president, but I hope they are dead wrong. Barack Obama as the president of the United States would utterly destroy America and our divine Constitution.

Obama can't possibly believe that he can have a reasonable discussion with someone like Ahmadinejab who is such a lunatic, refers to America as the Great Satan, is determined to launch World War III and Armageddon so his lost Imam (the 12th Imam) will return and: convert or kill everyone in the world, convert or kill Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ will appear to all of us and tell us that we were wrong and Allah is the true God and then Jesus Christ converts to Islam. How in the world does Obama believe he can have a reasonable conversation with that madman?

[Ronda Hinrichsen]

Why would he even want to? In the Book of Mormon sections I've been reading lately, related to war stuff, the righteous leaders would tell the opposite side what they were willing to do--trade prisoners, promise not to come out to war with them again, or whatever--but if the opposing side refused to do everything he said, they did not deal. It was much too dangerous to deal. To me, that's what's going on with Bush right now and how it should be. We can't allow the "bad guys" to get more power.

Candace E. Salima said:

It's pretty scary, Ronda. The closer we come to the election the more I hope that the liberal media is skewing the polls. I know they've already declared him as the next president, but I hope they are dead wrong. Barack Obama as the president of the United States would utterly destroy America and our divine Constitution.

Obama can't possibly believe that he can have a reasonable discussion with someone like Ahmadinejab who is such a lunatic, refers to America as the Great Satan, is determined to launch World War III and Armageddon so his lost Imam (the 12th Imam) will return and: convert or kill everyone in the world, convert or kill Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ will appear to all of us and tell us that we were wrong and Allah is the true God and then Jesus Christ converts to Islam. How in the world does Obama believe he can have a reasonable conversation with that madman?

[yourLDSneighborhood]

I couldn't agree more, Ronda. It is a very dangerous situation we face with this presidential election this year. Sadly, I think too many good people are simply ignoring thinking they can't make a difference. They couldn't be more wrong.

Candace (yourLDSneighborhood)

[Sarah Albrecht]

Well, I'm pretty late jumping into this discussion. I did just read a book about the 1953 coup in Iran, in which the United States sponsored the overthrow of Iran's first democratic prime minister. Most Americans (including me, before this book) don't know we did this, but apparently most Iranians remember--and resent-- perfectly. If they think we started the problem, do you think it's wrong to compromise to try and make amends? Or, given how terror has become such a factor, is it too late?

[Ronda Hinrichsen]

Sarah Albrecht said:

Well, I'm pretty late jumping into this discussion. I did just read a book about the 1953 coup in Iran, in which the United States sponsored the overthrow of Iran's first democratic prime minister. Most Americans (including me, before this book) don't know we did this, but apparently most Iranians remember--and resent-- perfectly. If they think we started the problem, do you think it's wrong to compromise to try and make amends? Or, given how terror has become such a factor, is it too late?

Sarah, I honestly don't know, as you just implied, about the US sponsoring a 1953 coup, so I can't make a valid judgement as to why they did it and whether or not we should make amends; but I still say it's wrong to compromise with terrorists when their cause is not just, and it's wrong to compromise on issues which destroy our inalienable rights and freedoms.

[Sarah Albrecht]

I agree compromise with terrorists would "compromise" our security. I'm not sure talking is wrong, but I would certainly hope it wouldn't inevitably lead to compromise. We can pray our president finds wisdom appropriate to the challenge.

[Ronda Hinrichsen]

I agree. I am praying he'll be wise. But from what I've seen, if you're willing--or forced--to talk with terrorists, it's always includes them demanding something, which means compromise. That's the whole point of terrorism: to force others to see your side and give you want you want.

[Steven O'Dell]

The Bible says to forgive until "seventy times seven" (a reference to the 490 years that had passed since the prophecy predicting the year of the arrival of the Messiah, and repeated in the day that the people did not recognize His visitation among them). In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord instructs us that we are to forgive our enemies at least three times, and then, if we wish, He will place them in our hands to do with as we choose. Of course, we are also told that vengeance is the Lord's. We are also told that any nation that raises a hand against Israel (which we are, as well as the nation bearing that name) will come to naught. That would be, I assume, to infer that we must be a righteous nation, however, if we are to garner that degree of protection.

How does one reconcile these seemingly contradictory instructions? It is always wise to first talk, to attempt reasoning together. Assuming that our enemies will then repent of their hatred, we are to proceed as if it never had happened. If they will not reason with reasonable men, then we are to take our plea unto the Lord. We are never to attack without provocation, nor without the Lord's will being favorable to such. Should the Lord decide to place the wicked into the hands of the righteous, in order to call them to repentance or to cleanse them from the earth, it shall be done by, and according to, His will alone. That we can plea with Him to avenge us of our enemies is a given, but never should we take it upon ourselves to declare the war without His approval or we shall fail miserably.

We are always expected to be a righteous and God-fearing, obedient people, if we wish the full blessings of the Lord. We have not always been such. Our enemies are both foreign and domestic. Men in high places, in our own government and elected by a too-trusting people, can now be counted among our enemies. Gadianton robbers who wish to enslave us to a world government, who have no respect for our Constitution and what it stands for, and even less for those who gave their lives, fortunes and reputations for it and for their posterity. We have sold our freedom for what we perceived to be security, and now we have neither. Our first battle should be the cleansing of our previously hallowed halls of government and the education of our sleeping citizenry. Then, and only then, shall we be a favorable people in the sight of the Lord and worthy of His protecting hand.

[Steven O'Dell]

The reference to America as the Great Satan is often misunderstood by our people. The term Satan means literally "destroyer" and one could argue that America has not always caused the most righteous outcomes in the countries in which it has meddled. We seem to gloss over phrases like "Ugly American" and think we are somehow misunderstood and superior, when in fact we have indeed been guilty as a nation of exploitations and depravities upon the populaces of other nations. Our Internet, for example, or our syndicated TV broadcasts about the earth, have been the cause of moral decay in many ways. Not that the only result of these advances is bad, but the potential and the exercise thereof have certainly been a reality. We can hope to make amends and reform our ways in the future, but human nature being what it is, I don't expect much until the Savior returns. I might add that any aspersions I have cast on us is not to be interpreted as an acquittal of those whose hearts are filled with hatred toward us.

[Brenda Landry]

I disagree. It's best to know your enenimes. Jesus talked with many enemies and made no compromises.

[Joseph]

For many years we have had a policy of not giving terrorists an inch. Obama has just thrown that heritage out the door. I'm sorry but it is not acceptable. Combine this with everything else he's doing and I can see how the constitution will hang by a thread. It's already starting.