Hillary: "Respect our enemies & empathize with them"

[APACHERAT]

Hilary's statements are perfectly fine. She said 'show respect" not "to respect." There is a big difference. Winning a war, especially a war with a strong propaganda effort (winning hearts and minds) requires understanding your opponent's motivations. That way you can better anticipate what they will do next.

When has winning hearts and minds worked in war ?

 

[Glen Contrarian]

What puppet government in Iraq are you speaking of ? If we were have to established a pupet government in Iraq, American troops would have remained in Iraq and ISIS wouldn't be in Iraq today.

To us, it wasn't a puppet government...but to the Sunnis, the majority-Shi'a government was not just a puppet government, but 'proof' to them of how the Shi'a were allied with the "Great Satan". It didn't matter that we didn't design it as a puppet government. All that mattered in the eyes of the Sunni (with very well-funded Sunni sympathizers throughout most of the Middle East) was that we installed a majority-Shi'a government. Our explanations and rhetoric didn't matter - all that mattered was that now they had yet another Shi'a nation to fight.

As you should know, I didn't support going into Iraq back in 2003 because the Bush administration wasn't sticking to the "Weinberger Doctrine" and the "Powell Doctrine."

But as soon as our troops crossed the line into combat I had to support the troops because I and a couple of million other vets remember what it was personally like being stabbed in the back by your fellow peers back home on the streets in America.

As soon as the usual suspects started politicizing the war in Iraq, I knew we weren't going to see the outcome that we were hoping for.
At least we accomplished the mission, the mission was regime change in Iraq.

AR, none of us wanted our troops to come to harm - do you not understand that? But "supporting the troops" comes in more ways then just "give them more of whatever they say they need in order to fulfill the mission without getting killed." A much better way is to not send them in harm's way to begin with, and - if they are sent in harm's way for the WRONG reason, get them out of there!

And that's the view of the Left, including myself - if the troops are sent in harm's way for the wrong reason, then it is almost always MORE ethical to get the troops out of there (even if we have to pay reparations for what we did) than it is to keep them there to "accomplish" the mission when the mission should never have been authorized in the first place.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

The reason that there is no distinction is due to those that would be considered madmen. As Sun Tzu and others would not try to empathize with one who was insane.

Ah. So our enemies are all insane?

 

[APACHERAT]

To us, it wasn't a puppet government...but to the Sunnis, the majority-Shi'a government was not just a puppet government, but 'proof' to them of how the Shi'a were allied with the "Great Satan". It didn't matter that we didn't design it as a puppet government. All that mattered in the eyes of the Sunni (with very well-funded Sunni sympathizers throughout most of the Middle East) was that we installed a majority-Shi'a government. Our explanations and rhetoric didn't matter - all that mattered was that now they had yet another Shi'a nation to fight.



AR, none of us wanted our troops to come to harm - do you not understand that? But "supporting the troops" comes in more ways then just "give them more of whatever they say they need in order to fulfill the mission without getting killed." A much better way is to not send them in harm's way to begin with, and - if they are sent in harm's way for the WRONG reason, get them out of there!

And that's the view of the Left, including myself - if the troops are sent in harm's way for the wrong reason, then it is almost always MORE ethical to get the troops out of there (even if we have to pay reparations for what we did) than it is to keep them there to "accomplish" the mission when the mission should never have been authorized in the first place.

Hey Glen, how many Vietnam vets have you talked to who were in-country in 1968 and kicked the VC and NVA asses big time during the Tet Offense of 68 ? They saw the light at the end of the tunnel and then one evening back in the big PX, Walter Cronkite lied to the American people.
They felt like they were backed stabbed.

And for the next four more years the American soldier kept being backed stabbed by their fellow Americans back home.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Hey Glen, how many Vietnam vets have you talked to who were in-country in 1968 and kicked the VC and NVA asses big time during the Tet Offense of 68 ? They saw the light at the end of the tunnel and then one evening back in the big PX, Walter Cronkite lied to the American people.
They felt like they were backed stabbed.

And for the next four more years the American soldier kept being backed stabbed by their fellow Americans back home.

AR, it's very much up to debate whether we should have been in Vietnam to begin with - there's good arguments on both sides. BUT Iraq was not Vietnam - we should NEVER have invaded Iraq. The best support we could have given our troops was to get them out of there, out of harm's way.

 

[CRUE CAB]

I wonder how much respect she has for Monica.

 

[APACHERAT]

AR, it's very much up to debate whether we should have been in Vietnam to begin with - there's good arguments on both sides. BUT Iraq was not Vietnam - we should NEVER have invaded Iraq. The best support we could have given our troops was to get them out of there, out of harm's way.

The only people who said we should have been in South Vietnam was JFK and the "young and brightest" he surrounded himself with.

I tend to side with President Esienhower, stay the **** out of the RVN. But if JFK were to not to listen to his elders, once troops are committed, it has to be fought as total war.

LBJ ****ed up like Obama is doing today, micromanaging.

 

[MMC]

Ah. So our enemies are all insane?

No one said all. Which isn't the point about Sun Tzu and empathizing with ones enemy. As I just gave the exact reason why.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

once troops are committed, it has to be fought as total war.

The ONLY time your claim is true is if the nation itself is truly at risk...

...and America was never truly at risk when it came to Iraq. The only thing we risked by pulling out was a loss of national pride.

The ONLY thing keeping us there was pride. Only pride, and nothing else.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No one said all. Which isn't the point about Sun Tzu and empathizing with ones enemy. As I just gave the exact reason why.

You're still making a sweeping, broad-brush assumption. In your eyes, those who oppose us are insane. In Sun Tzu's eyes, such an assumption itself would be crazy, because it means that you don't really understand what it takes to "know your enemy".

 

[MMC]

You're still making a sweeping, broad-brush assumption. In your eyes, those who oppose us are insane. In Sun Tzu's eyes, such an assumption itself would be crazy, because it means that you don't really understand what it takes to "know your enemy".

No, I just gave you the reason why Sun Tzu would not empathize with an enemy and why none of his writings speak of such.

 

[APACHERAT]

The ONLY time your claim is true is if the nation itself is truly at risk...

...and America was never truly at risk when it came to Iraq. The only thing we risked by pulling out was a loss of national pride.

The ONLY thing keeping us there was pride. Only pride, and nothing else.

You're going off track, your quoting my quote of quoting Esienhower in reference the South Vietnam, not Iraq.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

No, I just gave you the reason why Sun Tzu would not empathize with an enemy and why none of his writings speak of such.

Where is there ANY indication in Sun Tzu's writings that he would have considered any of his enemy as 'insane'? If you'll read his writings, he makes it pretty clear:

- There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

...

- Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

- With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

You canNOT invade a distant nation and defeat them without losing a man (especially in a place also called "the graveyard of empires"). The ONLY way to do this is to get the leadership of that nation to WANT to help you, to get them to WANT to take your side...

...and this requires diplomacy and understanding (and a very healthy use of espionage). There's a LOT more to "knowing your enemy" than just estimating their military capability...and it's infinitely better to get your enemy to become your ally than it is to earn generations of hatred by invading them.

 

[MMC]

Where is there ANY indication in Sun Tzu's writings that he would have considered any of his enemy as 'insane'? If you'll read his writings, he makes it pretty clear:

- There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.

...

- Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

- With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

You canNOT invade a distant nation and defeat them without losing a man (especially in a place also called "the graveyard of empires"). The ONLY way to do this is to get the leadership of that nation to WANT to help you, to get them to WANT to take your side...

...and this requires diplomacy and understanding (and a very healthy use of espionage). There's a LOT more to "knowing your enemy" than just estimating their military capability...and it's infinitely better to get your enemy to become your ally than it is to earn generations of hatred by invading them.

Again that is not for a war one is engaged in.....hence talking about invading a distant nation. Once one knows their enemy and cannot turn them from their will.....then one must do what they have to. Understanding that in this scenario that Peace is only achieved thru victory over the enemy.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

You're going off track, your quoting my quote of quoting Esienhower in reference the South Vietnam, not Iraq.

No, I'm not going off track. There were good arguments for and against our war in Vietnam...but the ONLY thing that really kept us in iraq and Afghanistan was pride.

Pride, and nothing more.

 

[MMC]

No, I'm not going off track. There were good arguments for and against our war in Vietnam...but the ONLY thing that really kept us in iraq and Afghanistan was pride.

Pride, and nothing more.

Waitaminute..... BO said Afghanistan was in order to stop AQ from Setting up a safe haven to Recruit and train troops. Oh wait, I see.....that's what Libya was to be.

 

[Hard Truth]

When has winning hearts and minds worked in war ?

It prevents wars and can prevent wars from escalating or expanding.

 

[APACHERAT]

It prevents wars and can prevent wars from escalating or expanding.

Winning heart and minds to prevent war makes sense.

Winning the hearts and minds after a war works well.

Trying to win the hearts and minds when your fighting a war has never worked out. During war you grabbed them by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow.

You win hearts and minds after you win the war.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Waitaminute..... BO said Afghanistan was in order to stop AQ from Setting up a safe haven to Recruit and train troops. Oh wait, I see.....that's what Libya was to be.

I'm referring to the FIVE years before Obama was president. Even WWII only lasted five years for the US.

 

[Hard Truth]

Winning heart and minds to prevent war makes sense.

Winning the hearts and minds after a war works well.

Trying to win the hearts and minds when your fighting a war has never worked out. During war you grabbed them by the balls, and their hearts and minds will follow.

You win hearts and minds after you win the war.

We achieved quick military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan that might have been sustained if we had done a better job of winning those hearts and minds. Instead we installed corrupt leaders with little credibility with their people. In Iraq, the favoritism towards just one religious faction and exclusion of teh other by the Iraqi president directly led to the current situation with ISIS.

 

[celticwar17]

We achieved quick military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan that might have been sustained if we had done a better job of winning those hearts and minds. Instead we installed corrupt leaders with little credibility with their people. In Iraq, the favoritism towards just one religious faction and exclusion of teh other by the Iraqi president directly led to the current situation with ISIS.

I'm not sure what the point of this statement is.

 

[eohrnberger]

BBC News - Pakistan Taliban: Peshawar school attack leaves 135 dead

We also know that ISIS is going around and killing children.

Clinton says America should ‘empathize’ with its enemies

Every fiber of my being is against the killing of innocent children who are faultless in any war or armed conflict, and are only involved as collateral casualties and victims.

I don’t think that “‘empathize’(ing) with its (these) enemies” who perform such barbarities are anyone that we need to, or should, empathize with.

I don’t think that Hillary is the president that the country needs in these times, as we can be sure that the Islamo-Facists are going to continue their aggression and killing of innocents.