Hey Fuchs,
Could you provide a link to the source ? I can't find anything on this article other than being linked to your blog.
A minor border incident
This is an ugly world...but others wouldn't be less so.
The Islamic Republic of Iran appears unimpressed by U.S. complaints about a minor incident at the U.S.-Mexican border. 25 U.S. soldiers were reportedly killed and 14 more wounded when Iranian attack helicopters opened fire on U.S. soldiers in a Texan border village a few days ago.
The Iranians have helped the Mexican government to suppress the rising drug cartels in a decade-long civil war. There are repeatedly complaints about how little the U.S. does about its huge pool of drug abusers who create the world's greatest demand for drugs and pull Mexico deeper and deeper into drug crime-driven chaos.
U.S. officials complain that the attack on the border post was unprovoked and dozens of other U.S. troops have supposedly already been killed by such attacks since summer, but the media in Iran and the entire Muslim world dismiss this as typical propaganda claim of a government that isn't trustworthy due to its tolerance of drug demand and the overt corruption of its political elite.
Iranian representatives declare that they will investigate the incident.
A report is expected to be finished once nobody cares any more.
Hey Fuchs,
Could you provide a link to the source ? I can't find anything on this article other than being linked to your blog.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
It's mine.
The source of the satire shouldn't matter (nor should its accuracy - it's all about assuming a different perspective.
Fuchs:
You forgot the part about how the CIA is training, funding and directing the cartels.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
I 'd go along with you on the perspective approach but my thoughts are that such an incident would be far more fatal than a bunch of political bantering if 25 US Soldiers were actually killed on the Mexican border regardless of where the helicopters originated from.Originally Posted by Fuchs
I'll bite, but I don't know where you're going with this. Pakistani soldiers die on the border following US aircraft bombing ?
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Ethically mature decision making
Great post! In mature normative ethics, the actors on either side of an action don't make a difference. If we believe it is wrong for actor A to commit action X against actor B, then it doesn't become right is we swap the actors. Of course, this is a big problem when you're really powerful and want to do whatever the hell you want without regard to others.
We don't know the details of what happened yet, but I would call attention to the following.
In Big Boys Rules, if you are an army that allows people who are shooting at guys who can call up fighter bombers and Apaches to hang around in your vicinity; you got no complaint coming if your people get killed.
Last edited by carl; 11-28-2011 at 05:59 PM. Reason: I forgot somethig, just like always.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Hmmm, Normative Ethics
Thanks for the lesson on ethics and philosophy as if everything was simply based on right and wrong when dealing with world super powers and politics
Although I'm waiting for Fuchs to support his post, I gotta wonder where you're going. I don't have to look far to see that applied ethics in this theoretical scenario just won't work other than in a text book.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Actually, I think that practical application is the best place for applying theories - when they are right, as I believe thie one is. As for the "our might makes us right" argument, well, that explains why a great deal of the world does not support us. Napoleon lost for similar reasons...piss enough of the world off, eventually they gang up you because you're a bully. But that's a consequentialist argument...one for juviniles. I still believe that adults should make decision based on logical and just rules (the ultimate "Big Boy Rules") - our Constitution was a pretty good step in that direction....which I why I swore the oath. Good discussion for a Monday....takes my mind off the staff work for a few moments, which is much appreciated!
It's in the news, apparently not at your place?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rder-post.html
I never got much positive reaction from anglophone audiences for my older satire about Iran invading Ireland as part of its war of terror, though.
That didn't work for Germany so well either.
Last edited by Fuchs; 11-28-2011 at 08:06 PM.
I also believe in practical application ...
INTJ - does the theory work in practice ?
The "facts" presented in this thread are totally inadequate for any sort of reasoned discussion - chaff.
Cross-border incidents are very fact intensive - and the facts have to determined. That determination most likely will require analysis of two or more competing set of facts.
Coincidentally, I just linked several decent resources that address those issues in this post, Kill or Capture - the McNeal View.
This particular cross-border incident most probably was not a pre-planned operation; but rather one where troops were in an emergency situation requiring close air support (CAS) or close combat attack (CCA). In both CAS and CCA in Afghanistan, the pilot may not deploy a weapon without ground commander direction, usually through a JTAC. Same idea for arty. But, I'll wait for the "fourth" after action report, which is more likely to have the facts right.
Nuff said by me here.
Regards
Mike
You didn't get the point.
Would you really care about details if Iranian helicopters had killed 25 U.S. soldiers on Texan soil ???
Thanks, but that was the story I thought you were using in your theoretical version above.
I heard it on the news last night and I get your point (if that's where you were going with this border issue).
Now, I won't go calling it "indiscriminate" and I'm sure some soldiers or airmen are in deep Kimchi as we correspond
If you want to blend in, take the bus
I'm happy we could get you out from behind the desk and staff work
How can we be practical and apply theories ? 200 kilometers from where I sit is a boiling pot of discontent and we hope Putin does not get elected (Georgia comes to mind right this second and deplores any logic other than just plain old pissed off). What in creation is practical ? That he has at his disposal over a million untrained idiots that will overrun a tiny country, all the while the political rhetoric is flung like cow dung ?
It's not that I completely agree with the "biggest baddest SOB in the valley" routine, but there are some fine examples that I ended up with over the last 3 decades that tell me "that's the way it is".
Africans (from my time) and Russians defy theory and practical application.
Your thoughts as I ponder sleeping
If you want to blend in, take the bus
I don't know what a consequentialist is and I also don't know what mature normative ethics are. But I agree that people should make decisions based upon logical and just rules. One of the foremost logical and just rules is that you have the right of self defence. With this in mind I think that if some of our people were being attacked from the Pakistani side of the border it was eminently logical and just to destroy the people who were attacking them, the border be ...disregarded. If some Pakistani troops were killed in a mix-up they should keep better company.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Self defense is indeed recognized universally as a just cause for violence. Tactically, its a good answer - and in answer to JMM's post I hope the facts, once known, show that the Troopers on the ground made good tactical calls based on the conditions (made many myself, some good, some not).
But I don't think that's Fuch's point - we have placed our guys (and their CoC) in positions where they have to make such decisions and therefor disregard Pakistan's sovereignty and take the lives of thier soldiers. And claiming self-defense in a land thousands of miles away from our borders starts to sound a bit shrill after 10 years - no matter how justified we were (and I think we obviously were) going after our enemies after 9/11.
We would not stand for Iran providing security assistance in Mexico even if Mexicans launched an attack on Tehran. And if such security assistance resulted in American deaths, we wouldn't give a tinker's damn if the Iranians were taking fire from our side of the border. Fuch's point, I think, is that we demand respect for our sovergnty while disrespecting the sovereignty others - and such double standards should make us pause and think.
And with that, time for a beer to reflect further upon this, just because Im home now and can. For those not home yet....may you get there soon....
I don't care much about the big picture. I'm just a flyover person. I do care that our guys be able to shoot back at thems that shoot at them. That is the little picture. How that fits exactly into the big picture doesn't concern me too much because the little picture has American bodies in it.
Pakistan gave up the protection of sovereignty when the Pak Army/ISI decided to assist, train, direct, finance and guide Taliban & Co. If they want to claim sovereignty as a protection against our people exercising the right of self defence they should stop attacking us through Taliban & Co.. Like I said, if somebody was shooting us up from near a Frontier Corps outpost, and the Frontier Corps soldiers died because of return fire, they should blame themselves for allowing bad company to hang around.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
a) Border security can be enforced a mile or two away from the border. That bit of no man's land would hardly matter.
People need to learn to think rationally.
b) Helicopters do not fire in self defence, nor do fighter bombers.
I'm so tired of this "F-16 fired in self-defence on wedding party" bull####.
It takes longer to acquire targets and fire for effect than to speed away. It's NOT legitimate self-defence if you choose to fight despite this means greater risk for you. That's combat, but not self-defence.
Aviation assets turning loose on "muzzle flash" sightings are not exercising a right to self-defend - they are using an excuse to unleash their firepower, period.
That being said, I have not yet read a detailed report about whether ground forces or only aviation assets were under fire, but the killing appears to have been done by helicopters.
And again, I do not believe that you guys would accept "self-defense" as an excuse if 25 U.S. troops had died at Iranian hands on the Texan border.
Oh, and before I read again a dismissive text regarding Pakistans sovereignty:
It's a nuclear power and they can read English, damnit!
Who is saying that the helicopters fired to defend themselves? The helicopters were called in by troops on the ground who were under fire and were therefore defending themselves by using available assets.
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”
Terry Pratchett
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks