Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I understand, but if Muslims had a better opinion of the United states, (and i don't mean great or positive, just not burning our flags and shooting at us every chance they get) and didn't see us as some devil spawned global empire, these "liberations" would go more smoothly and cost us less.

I doubt it, nation building is expensive by its nature, and operations similar to the one in Libya are actually pretty cheap by comparison.

Also, its not "Muslims", there are Muslims outside the Middle East.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes and no. Most of these terrorists that we are afraid of were formed as a direct response to western interference in the middle east.

That may be true, but what inspires a terrorist doesn't really have any bearing on where they're able to operate.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The continued wars only fuel the fire, well that and we, like the soviet union armed the hell out of them to further our goals while interfering.

Not necessarily, as American wars in the Middle East doesn't have all that much to do with the origins of Islamic extremism. Western cultural dominance has, in general caused a trend of Westernization that many tradition oriented cultures strongly object to.

Does America have a plan B if any government decides to turn them against us?

The US is not lacking in weapons capable of taking an abrams out of existence. That it can stop 2 pound RPG warheads all day long doesn't necessarily mean it'll stop a 20 pound hellfire, or 120+ pound AGM-65....or a laser designator and a 2000 pound paveway...

The Obama administration is supplying the weapons to draw attention away from recent activity at Area 51.

Truly? I thought they ran out of guns to give away after supplying all those criminals in Mexico.

Back to topic: In a conflict like this, I'm sure -everything- is in play. "I know a guy.." to deserters leaving with all the ammo and guns they can fit in a truck bed, to people at state factories and depots "losing track" of crates here and there, or a couple workers running the machines a bit extra when no one is looking, to guns coming in from governments or groups outside of the country, private owned firearms...etc.

I doubt it, nation building is expensive by its nature, and operations similar to the one in Libya are actually pretty cheap by comparison.

Also, its not "Muslims", there are Muslims outside the Middle East.

Yes but you have already objected to Arab, so lets just assume since we are talking about the middle east I am talking about Muslims/Arabs in the middle east shall we? (there needs to be an orkicon with rolling eyes)

Yes Libya was cheap, especially if you were not the US. It would be cheaper is someone else did it, if you believe it needed to be done at all. Nation building is expensive but there are issues that make it more expensive. The local populace seeing you as the army of the devil usually makes it very expensive.

That may be true, but what inspires a terrorist doesn't really have any bearing on where they're able to operate.

Yes but if we don't inspire them they don't operate. Well not against us specifically or less.

dogma wrote:

Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?

Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.

Marcus Aurelius wrote: [Do] not forget the brotherhood of all rational beings, nor that a concern for every man is proper to humanity... If the power of thought is universal among mankind, so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows, therefore, that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any other common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason, and law themselves derive. If not, whence else?

Just happen to be reading his Meditations at the moment. Maybe I can dig some more up for you.

Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.

I'm not anywhere near as cold as Dogma, but even I know that is hokum! NO, NO, and NO. I mean maybe on a personal level I can value a bum because I can see how much it sucks to be one, but not a national and/or governmental level.......Hippie

I'm just teaching my three-year old how it's not polite to stick your tongue out at people, or call them names. Too bad you have to bring this down to the level of a toddler.

Was Marcus Aurelius a Hippie too?

murdog wrote:I'm just teaching my three-year old how it's not polite to stick your tongue out at people, or call them names. Too bad you have to bring this down to the level of a toddler.

Was Marcus Aurelius a Hippie too?

The was meant to inject humor to the hippie remark. It's pretty universal.

No he was a talking out of his ass. As would anyone who speaks like this yet still leads the military in wars. He obviously didn't believe what he was saying. We have a term for these people, they are called politicians.

murdog wrote:
Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.

I'm generally of the opinion that all life has the ability to be valued, and most life is valued by someone. I simply don't place any significant personal value on all specific living things. My friends are quite valuable to me, but an orphan in Darfur is almost valueless to me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

murdog wrote:

Marcus Aurelius wrote: [Do] not forget the brotherhood of all rational beings, nor that a concern for every man is proper to humanity... If the power of thought is universal among mankind, so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows, therefore, that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any other common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason, and law themselves derive. If not, whence else?

Just happen to be reading his Meditations at the moment. Maybe I can dig some more up for you.

I've read Meditations, and remember that quote in particular because of the bold portion. Marcus Aurelius was wrong, even if we assume all people are reasonable (A bold assumption if we interpret "reason" colloquially.) a universal morality does not follow. Now, one might claim that all people have a concept of morality, but that doesn't indicate all forms of morality are the same.

Of course, I'm reading "speaks" as "resonates emotionally" rather simply in the sense of conveying information neutrally.

Andrew1975 wrote:he was a talking out of his ass. As would anyone who speaks like this yet still leads the military in wars. He obviously didn't believe what he was saying.

... says some guy on the internet, 2000 years later! Forgive me if I find his words resonate with wisdom, and are echoed in the words and writings of spiritual teachers, philosophers, and scientists across time and culture. Certainly means more to me than 'a bum is valuable because it would suck to be one', which I'm struggling to make sense of, by the way.

Pacific wrote:
Are you speaking in philosophical terms, or on a practical level?

Both, my take of philosophy is extremely pragmatic.

Pacific wrote:
I always like to think that it's a fundamental part of being human, the ability to feel compassion for those who are not within our immediate society, and perhaps the only thing that might separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom. As well as that there is the old 'There but for the grace of God go I'.

I never liked that phrase, as it seems to imply you would still be you if you were placed in a vastly different situation. Strip away all my life experience, and I'm no longer me.

murdog wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:he was a talking out of his ass. As would anyone who speaks like this yet still leads the military in wars. He obviously didn't believe what he was saying.

... says some guy on the internet, 2000 years later! Forgive me if I find his words resonate with wisdom, and are echoed in the words and writings of spiritual teachers, philosophers, and scientists across time and culture. Certainly means more to me than 'a bum is valuable because it would suck to be one', which I'm struggling to make sense of, by the way.

Well if you can show me how he can possibly believe in that quote while leading armies to slaughter other members of "the brotherhood of all rational beings" I'd like to hear it. The sentiments expressed do not match the actions taken. It's a beautiful sentiment, but that's all it is.

If you can't understand that negative experiences can teach important lessons, well I'm not sure what to tell you. I think the term cautionary tales may apply here. What other value could a random homeless bum be to me?

There is a reason why spiritual teachers, philosophers, and scientists rarely make governmental policy.

dogma wrote:My friends are quite valuable to me, but an orphan in Darfur is almost valueless to me.

Why?

dogma wrote:I've read Meditations, and remember that quote in particular because of the bold portion. Marcus Aurelius was wrong, even if we assume all people are reasonable (A bold assumption if we interpret "reason" colloquially.) a universal morality does not follow. Now, one might claim that all people have a concept of morality, but that doesn't indicate all forms of morality are the same.

Of course, I'm reading "speaks" as "resonates emotionally" rather simply in the sense of conveying information neutrally.

Thats how I read 'speaks' as well. I read the part about reason a bit differently though, not colloquially, as in a 'reasonable' person, but as in we all possess the power of reason. Perhaps you are right, and universal morality does not follow from this (we have only to look at the stated beliefs of others to call that into question), but I think that the main point is that reason, and therefore the morality that springs from that (even if it differs from individual to individual) is what binds us in fraternity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
If you can't understand that negative experiences can teach important lessons, well I'm not sure what to tell you. I think the term cautionary tales may apply here. What other value could a random homeless bum be to me?

Ha ha now I see where you are coming from. That angle was just way outside my frame of reference at the moment, as we were talking about the value of life - you aren't valuing the bum's life so much as valuing his situation being presented to you. Well, I already said I believe all life to be valuable in and of itself, so it seems we simply have vastly different value systems.

murdog wrote:

dogma wrote:My friends are quite valuable to me, but an orphan in Darfur is almost valueless to me.

Why?
.

What can a orphan in darfur do for you? What is the potential of that orphan? essentially nothing compared to your friends

Well, the potential of that orphan is limited only by the situation it is born into. Its innate potential is as bright as yours or mine, given the proper opportunities and resources.

As for what the child can do for me, I don't limit my estimation of the value of a human being to what they can or cannot do for me.

Well, I already said I believe all life to be valuable in and of itself, so it seems we simply have vastly different value systems.

What is this guys value? http://news.yahoo.com/norway-mass-killer-demands-medal-court-hearing-133012973.html

As for what the child can do for me, I don't limit my estimation of the value of a human being to what they can or cannot do for me.

This is fine on a personal level, but should not be used to make government policy with tax payer money and lives.

Andrew1975 wrote:
What is this guys value? http://news.yahoo.com/norway-mass-killer-demands-medal-court-hearing-133012973.html

...

Population control?

Wait- Too soon?

Andrew1975 wrote:Well if you can show me how he can possibly believe in that quote while leading armies to slaughter other members of "the brotherhood of all rational beings" I'd like to hear it. The sentiments expressed do not match the actions taken. It's a beautiful sentiment, but that's all it is.

Well, wikipedia says 'Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration'. I don't know enough about the actual campaigns to say that he was rampaging around just for the sake of killing people. Do you? I do know the book is heavily about duty, and war would have been one of his duties. Just because you kill something doesn't mean you can't recognize the connection with yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:

Well, I already said I believe all life to be valuable in and of itself, so it seems we simply have vastly different value systems.

What is this guys value? http://news.yahoo.com/norway-mass-killer-demands-medal-court-hearing-133012973.html

Good one, good one. It's pretty hard to see any value in that guy. Practically, there is none. Still, you can put down a rabid dog while still loving (valuing) it as part of life. Love, in the most broad, all-encompassing sense possible. Marcus again: Thus to a man of sensitiveness and sufficiently deep insight into the workings of the universe... will view the grinning jaws of real lions and tigers as admiringly as he would an artist's or sculptor's imitation of them...

Andrew1975 wrote:

As for what the child can do for me, I don't limit my estimation of the value of a human being to what they can or cannot do for me.

This is fine on a personal level, but should not be used to make government policy with tax payer money.

So, what values should we use, if not personal ones?

I don't know enough about the actual campaigns to say that he was rampaging around just for the sake of killing people. Do you?

Oddly enough the Roman-Parthian war which hewas Emperor during began with a rebellion in Syria. It ended after the Romans made successful campaigns into lower Mesopotamia and Media and sacked, the Parthian capital. It can be surmised that he was little concerned about about this "brotherhood of all rational beings", of course he may not have considered his enemies rational as Romans rarely considered anyone but Romans to be on their level.

Still, you can put down a rabid dog while still loving (valuing) it as part of life. Love, in the most broad, all-encompassing sense possible. Marcus again: [i]Thus to a man of sensitiveness and sufficiently deep insight into the workings of the universe... will view the grinning jaws of real lions and tigers as admiringly as he would an artist's or sculptor's imitation of them...

By that logic I can appreciate what is going on in Syria as part of life, (I actually do, but more from a value of learning what to do an what not to do) without feeling the need to act in their behalf. Personally I feel for the people being killed in Syria as a waste. But that does not mean I feel that the US should spend treasure and American lives to save them. It sucks to be them, that's tough, that's life.

If they had something to offer in exchange, even loyalty I'd consider it. But they have nothing to make it worth the expense and burden of helping them.

If you want to make the argument about love, well I love my life(or the ability to live it as I do), Society (not so much the government but the ability to have one, which at the rate we spend money on silly expeditions may not be around too much longer) and people (read soldiers), more than I love the Syrians and the costs (in all terms) of defending them. Especially when you consider based on history we will spend tons of money and lose many lives, and still not remedy the situation, in fact may times we make it worse. I guess you could ask the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis if it was worth dieing to be rid of Saddam, but you can't because they are dead. It cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives and it's questionable if the lot of Iraq has improved at all. Even so, I can see it may have been worth it if the end result was of some benefit to the US, but I don't see that either.

So, what values should we use, if not personal ones?

Personal values are just that. Governmental values are completely different, the two rarely coincide. If you personally want to try to help the Syrians, more power to you, spend as much as you see fit, go over and fight if you want. That is your personal decision. The government should act in the best interests of it's people. Though I'm sure Dogma will say the government must act in the best interests of itself because people don't matter, which is a different argument.

I'm not making an argument for US intervention in Syria, just answering the question of why one should value the life of someone they don't know. I apologize for the troublesome quotes; I only used Marcus Aurelius because the book is open on my table, and I had just read that passage yesterday, and it seems to me to be relevant. You may surmise he was little concerned about the lives of his enemies - given his writings one could surmise the opposite as well. I could find a multitude of similar quotes about oneness, love, valuing all life, etc, from radically diverse sources, if you want me to.

As for personal/governmental values being completely different and rarely coinciding, I think that statement is a little extreme, especially in a democracy.

murdog wrote:I'm not making an argument for US intervention in Syria, just answering the question of why one should value the life of someone they don't know. I apologize for the troublesome quotes; I only used Marcus Aurelius because the book is open on my table, and I had just read that passage yesterday, and it seems to me to be relevant. You may surmise he was little concerned about the lives of his enemies - given his writings one could surmise the opposite as well. I could find a multitude of similar quotes about oneness, love, valuing all life, etc, from radically diverse sources, if you want me to.

As for personal/governmental values being completely different and rarely coinciding, I think that statement is a little extreme, especially in a democracy.

I would answer that while you may value and or put a value on them, why would you value them more than you would yourself or people in your group?

And while he may have respected them as enemies, I doubt he was concerned about their well being, well not above his own or his peoples. You can value something without placing great value on it, you can even put a negative value on it. It's very hard to sack a city and claim that you are truly concerned about the people being sacked. If he truly believed in the sentiments of that quote and those sentiments applied to those people, wouldn't he find some political way to solve the issue?

There seam to be a lot of high values to strive for in the writings, it's questionable (to me at least) whether he believed that these were "the way things should be" which is different from the way things are and the way he actually conducted himself on a daily basis. Utopia is a great and noble goal, its not attainable though.

It also may be a case of being concerned about people, but they should not be your only concern. I have concern for all people, but there are levels.

I just think you are taking the quote at face value too much. Remember Rome was a great place for political speech and double talk. I wouldn't put so much value on something that comes out of the mouth of a politician, much less a Roman emperor.

"Get thee glass eyes, and like a scurvy politician, seem to see the things thou dost not." Shakespeare

Also how is it even possible for a democracy or any government besides maybe a monarchy to function based on personal values. Which person gets to chose, if it's more than one, it's not a personal value, in fact in some ways since your values would effect everyone else in your government it could never be personal, even if you were completely selfish and not taking anyone else s values into account.

But people share common values, and thus they are reflected in government (which is made up by people). No?

Enough about Marcus, maybe. Including that specific quote was unfortunate. However the sentiment he expresses is repeated across human civilization.

murdog wrote:
Why?

My friends are valuable because I like them, and have experiential reason to, if not trust them, value and enjoy their company and continued respiration.

I've never met an orphan from Darfur, or even been to Darfur. They're numbers to me, and I don't see any reason to bind up my emotional state with their well being.

murdog wrote:
Perhaps you are right, and universal morality does not follow from this (we have only to look at the stated beliefs of others to call that into question), but I think that the main point is that reason, and therefore the morality that springs from that (even if it differs from individual to individual) is what binds us in fraternity.

I think that, in part, that's true. People often experience fraternity because, over time, they're told that it exists and that they should respect it as a concept (which is to say, because its a moral concept). But I also think its more subtle than that, and more closely tied to instinctual responses than conscious reason. In essence, most often people think "I feel like he's a brother." not "I should feel like he's a brother."

murdog wrote:

dogma wrote:

Why should I value the lives of people I don't, and will likely never, know?

Because all life is valuable. Because all life is connected. Because their suffering is your suffering.

Marcus Aurelius wrote: [Do] not forget the brotherhood of all rational beings, nor that a concern for every man is proper to humanity... If the power of thought is universal among mankind, so likewise is the possession of reason, making us rational creatures. It follows, therefore, that this reason speaks no less universally to us all with its 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'. So then there is a world-law; which in turn means that we are all fellow-citizens and share a common citizenship, and that the world is a single city. Is there any other common citizenship that can be claimed by all humanity? And it is from this world-polity that mind, reason, and law themselves derive. If not, whence else?

Just happen to be reading his Meditations at the moment. Maybe I can dig some more up for you.

The man was the Emperor of the Rome! He ruled a despotic empire that waged plenty of wars and prided itself on its martial history. He even went to war with Persia (Parthian Empire) from 160-166AD! Even if you claim he justified that with an assertion of 'just war' you would only bring us back to the origional problem of hypocrisy about preaching common humanity but surrendering to real politic issues. Which is the problem with Marcus Aurelius logic, he makes a huge leap from all humans have equal reason to we all share a common interest which implies we have no interest in harming one another. That common interest cannot be held as a matter of faith, it needs to be solidified with real shared interests that are not universal otherwise people are indifferent and even hostile to one another. I think its more likely that Marcus Aurelius, in his use of civic language by comparing his world community to a city was merely making a moral assertion to his own people against their own selfish debauchery and corruption. Instead he wanted them to devout themselves to the greater community (with him in charge naturally, being Imperator and all ) much as their nobler ancestors had done; allowing reason to overcome selfish passions and make the state stronger.

As others have said: 'He was talking out his ass'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

murdog wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:Well if you can show me how he can possibly believe in that quote while leading armies to slaughter other members of "the brotherhood of all rational beings" I'd like to hear it. The sentiments expressed do not match the actions taken. It's a beautiful sentiment, but that's all it is.

Well, wikipedia says 'Meditations, written in Greek while on campaign between 170 and 180, is still revered as a literary monument to a philosophy of service and duty, describing how to find and preserve equanimity in the midst of conflict by following nature as a source of guidance and inspiration'. I don't know enough about the actual campaigns to say that he was rampaging around just for the sake of killing people. Do you? I do know the book is heavily about duty, and war would have been one of his duties. Just because you kill something doesn't mean you can't recognize the connection with yourself.

lol

Exactly, hes talking about civic duty which doesn't question the existence of citzens who by their very nature would have bourne arms to defend their city as commonly understood in the classical sense.

Frederick the Great was also a fan of the meditations!

Sorry just couldn't resist.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes but you have already objected to Arab, so lets just assume since we are talking about the middle east I am talking about Muslims/Arabs in the middle east shall we? (there needs to be an orkicon with rolling eyes)

I objected to "Arab" in one context, and now I'm objecting to "Muslim" in another.

The Middle East isn't all Arab, or Muslim. You can't conflate them, and doing so indicates to me, again, that you have spent all of 5 minutes reading about the Middle East.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes Libya was cheap, especially if you were not the US.

About 1 billion for the US, and 500 million each for France and the UK.

All small change.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It would be cheaper is someone else did it, if you believe it needed to be done at all.

Sure, but it would also be cheaper for me if you decided that you wanted to be my chauffeur free of charge.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Nation building is expensive but there are issues that make it more expensive. The local populace seeing you as the army of the devil usually makes it very expensive.

I recommend you look into the total cost of rebuilding Germany and Japan, and consider how a foreign power "building" you nation might negatively impact the opinion that nation holds regarding that foreign power.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes but if we don't inspire them they don't operate. Well not against us specifically or less.

Sorry, but I'm tired of you mixing arguments. A terrorist haven is not a source of terrorists, its a place terrorists can operate from, and I specifically noted terrorist havens as explicit concerns and further explained what they are. If you believe that terrorist havens cultivate terrorists, or object to my statement that they are not prime concerns, then say so explicitly.

You're either arguing dishonestly on purpose, or incompetent.

Totalwar1402 wrote:As others have said: 'He was talking out his ass'

Sorry just couldn't resist.

Marcus Aurelius does not need me to defend him, so I won't. I'm sure entire libraries could be marshalled for and against the question of whether or not he wrote in good faith. It really matters little for this thread - the passage I quoted is echoed through the ages, across time, culture, and geography. I merely used it because it was at hand. The point was to answer the question as to why human life should be valued, regardless of whether or not one has personal knowledge or experience of the human life in question.

I objected to "Arab" in one context, and now I'm objecting to "Muslim" in another.

The Middle East isn't all Arab, or Muslim. You can't conflate them, and doing so indicates to me, again, that you have spent all of 5 minutes reading about the Middle East.

No, what you are doing is using nit picking as a diversion. Anyone else can see from the context exactly who I am referring too. There is no one proper term that one can use to encompass all the people of the middle east and surrounding areas.

Sorry, but I'm tired of you mixing arguments.

You can dish it out but you can't take it huh? Typical.

A terrorist haven is not a source of terrorists, its a place terrorists can operate from, and I specifically noted terrorist havens as explicit concerns and further explained what they are. If you believe that terrorist havens cultivate terrorists, or object to my statement that they are not prime concerns, then say so explicitly.

But I'm not saying either. I'm saying that unnecessary and poorly thought out actions taken by the west have not only created, and fueled terrorism, but made us targets of it. These same actions have made it very difficult to make true and lasting political ties.

About 1 billion for the US, and 500 million each for France and the UK.

All small change.

I' don't think the US should be spending money and lives like they are nothing. 1 billion here, one billion there, billions and billions on Iraq and trillions into the military beast just so we can go on these missions. France was the one that began the whole Libya saber rattling. If they were so concerned they should have handled Libya on their own or better yet get the Arab league to handle it.

Syria will not be another Libya. The Syrian military is an all together different beast.

Sure, but it would also be cheaper for me if you decided that you wanted to be my chauffeur free of charge.

No, it wouldn't because I'd run your car with you in it over a cliff. Either argue or don't argue but this is just pathetic.

I recommend you look into the total cost of rebuilding Germany and Japan, and consider how a foreign power "building" you nation might negatively impact the opinion that nation holds regarding that foreign power.

Yeah, because post world war 2 Germany and Japan were real problems as compares to say Iraq?

ebay

http://stores.ebay.com/Israeli-Weapons-Ltd

DIDM wrote:ebay

http://stores.ebay.com/Israeli-Weapons-Ltd

Ha..though it is in the Israeli's benefits to keep the current regime in power, the regime that has no motivation to retake the golan heights or go on a war footing with Israel

DIDM wrote:ebay

http://stores.ebay.com/Israeli-Weapons-Ltd

A while ago some guy had posted a Huey Cobra on ebay autos. http://forums.pelicanparts.com/porsche-911-technical-forum/8945-cobra-attack-helicopter-fs-ebay-what-gives.html

you can buy anything on ebay

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1564159/Nuclear-missile-base-for-sale-on-eBay.html