http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/05/clinton-says-america-should-empathize-with-its-enemies/

maybe even give them some immigrant status

Do they really RESPECT us? No. That's why they are our ENEMIES! Stoopid Politicians!

If McCain or Jeb Bush had said this you would probably agree and this wouldn't be news on Fox.

Ever read the Art of War?

Pretty simple: UNDERSTAND your enemy. So well that you know their next move before they do.

Or is there some aspect of not understanding your enemy that is somehow strategic?

Respect? History is chock full of enemy commanders respecting one another even as they strive to dismember the others' forces, even kill each other. Full of gracious battlefield defeats and surrenders. Its quite true that our terrorist enemies don't have this regard for our commanders or troops but do you really want our leadership to degrade to the level of "Die, muddafakkas, DIE!"

Or, perhaps more practical, should we underestimate our enemies instead of respect them? That's the continuum she is referring to.

What Clinton said makes perfect sense. The fact that she is the one saying it is the only reason you don't see what she is saying. This is classic, timeless strategy. It amuses me that the commentators understand the strategies of both war and diplomacy so little that they think she means we have to sympathize with our enemies. Idiots.

Empathy: The ability to mutually experience the thoughts, emotions and direct experience of others.

If McCain or Bush had said this, I'd be standing in line for my turn to smack them upside the head.

Yes, I have read The Art of War. I do wish to understand my enemy, in order to gain insight into his capabilities and motivation. Which I will respect, so that I do not give an advantage through my own overconfidence. Then I'll crush him on the battlefield utilizing his own weaknesses to my advantage.

Empathize with them? Not so much.

Hillary is the only one saying this because she's a fool. The mess our foreign relations are in is due primarily to her incompetence while pretending to be Secretary of State. She wouldn't know strategy if bit her on the ass.

I can't believe that there is someone on this forum defending this lying, self serving, withered fascist hag.

Here's another of her brilliant statements.

Empathy: The ability to mutually experience the thoughts, emotions and direct experience of others.

If McCain or Bush had said this, I'd be standing in line for my turn to smack them upside the head.

Yes, I have read The Art of War. I do wish to understand my enemy, in order to gain insight into his capabilities and motivation. Which I will respect, so that I do not give an advantage through my own overconfidence. Then I'll crush him on the battlefield utilizing his own weaknesses to my advantage.

Empathize with them? Not so much.

Hillary is the only one saying this because she's a fool. The mess our foreign relations are in is due primarily to her incompetence while pretending to be Secretary of State. She wouldn't know strategy if bit her on the ass.

I can't believe that there is someone on this forum defending this lying, self serving, withered fascist hag.

Here's another of her brilliant statements.

The problem with empathy is it's often one-sided.  By the time you've learned your enemy has no intention of trying to "understand you and your way of life," they will have learned how to manipulate you and your empathetic altruism into helping them kill you!

If someone doesn't like you, and you continually shower them with money and gifts to show how nice and generous you are, you will not win their love or respect.  They will think you are too stupid to be respected.  Only a fool gives his own enemies aid and support.

I know what Hillary is wishing for:  to win the hearts and minds of our enemies so neither side wants to destroy the other.

That will never happen.  Our enemies teach babies to hate America and Jews from the day they learn to understand language. 

I'd really like to know how our showing respect and empathy will counteract that type of ingrained hatred and mistrust.

I've been on this Earth long enough to know you can't change people who don't want to change. 

I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.

The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

. - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Of course you can't believe someone is defending Clinton on this forum. Only people who lean right think the 2nd amendment is important, right? The Republicans OWN the 2nd amendment.
Fortunately I'm not defending her.  Are independents so rare no one understands the concept anymore?

And please find me some of those non-lying, selfless politicians!!! The only one I've ever been aware of in a presidential run was Ron Paul. The republicans ~really~ should have nominated him. He was the only one that had a chance of stealing a significant share of Obama's previous supporters. A good 60% or so of the democrats I know would have voted for Paul in a heartbeat.  But the GOP strategists did not... um... empathize well enough with the voters who were frustrated with Obama and no longer supported him as they had during the first election.

Clearly we see this post from different perspectives, edster48. In this case I think it is mostly in the definition and strategic application of empathy. In war? Useless. In diplomacy and peace making? Quite handy. I understand your point, though, and see how it could be interpreted that way. Since she is talking about "peace and security" I see her point as valid and strategically sound. Its still just political blah, blah, blah... but not, in my mind, a reason to jump down her throat.

I also see our foreign relations mess as having it roots more in our cold war strategies, predatory economics (which would take me a while to explain) and the fact that our military is also a tool of multinational corporate interests. Mrs. Clinton may not have done much good as Sec. of State but calling the mess primarily her fault seems short sighted to me.

And I think she is a horrible choice for President, by the way. She's probably the best the dems will muster, though, as the few who might make good Presidents aren't willing to jump into this toxic political climate and get chewed up. Sanders might run on the democratic ticket but I don't think he'll get the nomination. That will be the same mistake the GOP made in passing over Paul but I think it will matter less. The GOP pretty much has the election in 2016 unless they do something stupid. Which they very well might.

Also from a historical perspective, Hitler was largely correct at the time he said that. Post WWI Germany was a mess and the fabric of society had unraveled to the point where too many people only out for themselves. Crime and fraud were on the rise as poverty stricken Germans increasingly saw each other as targets instead of countrymen. Society requires teamwork in order to function and that means that occasionally the individual is superseded by society. Your need to get to work quickly won't keep you from getting a ticket for running a red light. Your need for water won't keep it from getting shut off when you can't pay. Your need for a job won't keep companies from moving jobs overseas in order to pay better dividends to their shareholders. Your need to get laid doesn't mean rape should be legal.

In many ways the DEGREE of teamwork society requires and how to ensure it is one of the core disagreement between Democrats and Republicans - and none of them are as absolute about it as Hitler was. That society's need trumps individual needs at times, though, is not really questioned by anyone except hardcore anarchists.

Excellent posts, Mauidog. I pretty much figured it was a matter of time before a Ghandi quote made it into this thread.

Oh - missed one of your points, Mauidog. I'll take a stab at explaining how showing respect to America hating countries ~might~ pay off.

MIGHT. Also might not.

And I doubt I'll explain it well. :/ It involves a number of assumptions that we may not agree on, are quite off topic, and worthy of debate in and of themselves.

I'm going to ignore the issue of enmity between arabs and jews. That is their business.

One could wonder why it is we MAKE it our business by unequivocally supporting Israel. Not supporting Israel would do more to lessen the root causes of anti-american sentiment (and terrorism) in the arab world than any other single act. This is a fundamental act of disrespect (from their point of view) that would look like a step towards respect (from their point of view) if we withdrew our enormous financial support of Israel and recognized Palestine.

The other thing is that we meddle. A lot. No, really: I mean a lot - from the perspective of our enemies. And we have a long history of treating non-European nations poorly if they have stuff we want and we can't agree to terms of exchange. The thing is that its not US doing it. It is corporate interests doing it, in some cases with the backing of the US military. You've read Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket?" A little dated and the issues he is describing post WWI have escalated dramatically and globally post WWII.

If we respected the cultures and their rights to self determination of the various places we have vested interests instead of meddling there wouldn't be the build up of resentment. That resentment towards the US did NOT exist prior to WWII. This isn't Islam vs. Christians and Jews. It is the resentment caused by a global power running roughshod around the world looking after its own interests (and the profits of the multinational corporations) at the expense of their sovereignty. The British did it first. "We" learned to do it via money instead of empire. Then the money figured out how to do it without even needing to be beholden to any particular government. Its the other way around now: the politicians need the money... so the troops sometimes go where the money needs them to.

The average American is unaware of this little nugget of our foreign policy. The average Arab is much more aware of it. That is what fuels the hate.

Let me say that slightly differently: the average American is unaware of why their country is so hated in some parts of the world. Seeing it then from their own point of view - we represent freedom so they must hate freedom. How can they hate freedom?! They must be evil.

Ironic. Because we do NOT represent freedom to them. We represent the corrupting influence of money and it affect on their freedom.

We could diffuse the anti-american sentiment significantly by respecting the sovereignty of all nations and not just the ones we like. The trouble is that the economic forces are no longer "us" and "we" have very little control of them. But if the bootlickers in DC would stop sending the troops out as per corporate request we'd be making a big step in the right direction.

Respect might even be as simple as just acknowledging that this has been the case since at least WWII.

Now. I can hear you saying that'll never work. And I agree.

But I think it will never work because "we" won't - maybe even can't - stop acting that way. It is far too profitable. Even the world conflict it causes are profitable. Even the divisiveness here at home is profitable. The fear? The raging demonstrations? The destruction? All profitable. The unemployment? The overfilled prisons? The vanishing middle class? Profitable.

Anyway, as I said. Full of assumptions that are worthy of debate. But if we want to actually reduce the factors that create anti-US terrorists we may have start playing (more) fair - and that starts with respect.

I won't hold my breath.

.

When Hillary can give Monica Lewinsky a big hug on national TV, then she can talk about loving enemies.

One thing I don't understand is why someone who supports 2A sides with and defends politicians who are anti-2A. You can only empathize and side with such asshats for so long before you no longer are a 2A supporter.  You're either pregnant or you're not... Sometimes you can rationalize and try understand something to a point you no longer know anything cause you're so confused.

I'm an Anthropologist. :shrug: I specifically trained to understand other cultures from their own point of view. It doesn't mean adopting or supporting their point of view - its just means understanding it.

I suppose that is a rare enough skill that it doesn't resemble anything in today's political climate. And, to be honest, it hasn't done all that much good for the Anthropologists or the cultures they study, either. Very few are interested in why things are the way they are from any except the simplest, most immediate and self serving points of view.

That's the largest part of what makes them so easy to manipulate.

I'm an Anthropologist. :shrug: I specifically trained to understand other cultures from their own point of view. It doesn't mean adopting or supporting their point of view - its just means understanding it.

I suppose that is a rare enough skill that it doesn't resemble anything in today's political climate. And, to be honest, it hasn't done all that much good for the Anthropologists or the cultures they study, either. Very few are interested in why things are the way they are from any except the simplest, most immediate and self serving points of view.

That's the largest part of what makes them so easy to manipulate.

Learning the "why" in human behavior might be useful IF you can engineer a behavioral modification to prevent the associated violence in the future.  Otherwise, I think acceptance of the fact there is hate and evil in the hearts of men is all we need to understand.

The 2 biggest "whys" in the conflicts of man are resources and ideologies.  I submit we will never reconcile those differences to where we all have what we want and need, and we all believe in the same world view.  If you believe otherwise, there are some folks at the UN waiting for you to enlighten them.



This can be applied to the topic, I think.

When you talk about trying to respect our enemies, it sounds like you are also advancing the idea we should no longer retaliate against those who kill Americans.

I don't think you've thought this through completely.  We can not show respect and understanding while simultaneously incarcerating or killing those who use violence against us.

Nor can you expect the enemy to cease their violence if you have adopted a policy of holding hands and singing Kumbayah.  Their perception that the US is weak only invites increased attacks, not fewer.

When you choose peace while your enemy is still attacking, you will not have "peace".  You will have "surrendered".

Ah.

"When you talk about trying to respect our enemies, it sounds like you are also advancing the idea we should no longer retaliate against those who kill Americans."

That's good to know. I didn't intend that meaning at all. Happens often enough: I don't sound exactly like US so I must be THEM. I get it from the liberals I know, as well.

"Learning the "why" in human behavior might be useful IF you can engineer a behavioral modification to prevent the associated violence in the future.  Otherwise, I think acceptance of the fact there is hate and evil in the hearts of men is all we need to understand."

I mostly agree, though I think that our easy acceptance of this fact is also partly engineered - divide and conquer. We are much easier to control when focused on some external enemy - real, fabricated or exaggerated. Behavioral engineering is commonplace, particularly post WWII as public relations, advertising and political strategists built on Goebbels' pioneering work in mass behavioral engineering. It isn't being used for anything as blatant as the Nazi party, or course, but it also is not being used for anything resembling the common good. I've taken to calling it "The Mis-information Age" - and I work in IT.

Well, its official. I give up. No point in exploring the idea further because you are quite right: no degree of understanding this or figuring out how to articulate it will change that it MUST be engineered behavioral modification that changes things. That won't happen for the simple fact that those who might wield such a weapon for the common good would largely consider it immoral to do so and history shows us that even such attempts that start out high minded never end that way. So that weapon remains only in the hands of the less than moral.

Thanks for humoring my silliness. I've enjoyed the dialog quite a bit.

Ah.

"When you talk about trying to respect our enemies, it sounds like you are also advancing the idea we should no longer retaliate against those who kill Americans."

That's good to know. I didn't intend that meaning at all. Happens often enough: I don't sound exactly like US so I must be THEM. I get it from the liberals I know, as well.

"Learning the "why" in human behavior might be useful IF you can engineer a behavioral modification to prevent the associated violence in the future.  Otherwise, I think acceptance of the fact there is hate and evil in the hearts of men is all we need to understand."

I mostly agree, though I think that our easy acceptance of this fact is also partly engineered - divide and conquer. We are much easier to control when focused on some external enemy - real, fabricated or exaggerated. Behavioral engineering is commonplace, particularly post WWII as public relations, advertising and political strategists built on Goebbels' pioneering work in mass behavioral engineering. It isn't being used for anything as blatant as the Nazi party, or course, but it also is not being used for anything resembling the common good. I've taken to calling it "The Mis-information Age" - and I work in IT.

Well, its official. I give up. No point in exploring the idea further because you are quite right: no degree of understanding this or figuring out how to articulate it will change that it MUST be engineered behavioral modification that changes things. That won't happen for the simple fact that those who might wield such a weapon for the common good would largely consider it immoral to do so and history shows us that even such attempts that start out high minded never end that way. So that weapon remains only in the hands of the less than moral.

Thanks for humoring my silliness. I've enjoyed the dialog quite a bit.

I truly wish we all lived in the land of rainbows, unicorns, color-blind acceptance, and enough of everything for everyone without the need to sacrifice and toil.

The reality is we are all struggling to make a better life for ourselves and our children of the future.  If we could find the gene that causes greed, lack of conscience, narcissism, envy, and emotions that cause hate and violence, maybe one day that irrational dream will be obtainable. 

Until then, we must try to help right overcome wrong.  How do we know the difference?  That's something few people can 100% define or agree on. 

It's right to kill a murderer to deter or punish killing. 

It's right to kill thousands in a war in response to a terrorist attack that killed thousands. 

It's right to imprison someone for 10 years for kidnapping and imprisoning another person for 10 years.

The list of seemingly contradictory justifications for punishing crimes against society and individuals goes on.  This is because "an eye for an eye" is not just a Biblical quote.  It's an age-old truth that seeks to teach members of society you will reap what you sow. 

As the meme said, don't judge society guilty when it's the individual's choice to break the law.  One side of the coin:  what made the person decide breaking the law was a viable option?  The other side:  the person made the choice knowing there could be consequences.

The same holds internationally.  Fear of punishment is often the only deterrent when values and animosities remove their "empathy" for us.

.

I'm still just waiting for clarification as to where this whole empathy thing was in the Art of War 

The Art of War references Empathy, but not in the way Hillary would use it...

.