A minor border incident

[Stan]

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.

[Fuchs]

It's mine.

The source of the satire shouldn't matter (nor should its accuracy - it's all about assuming a different perspective.

[carl]

Fuchs:

You forgot the part about how the CIA is training, funding and directing the cartels.

[Stan]

... it's all about assuming a different perspective.

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.

I'll bite, but I don't know where you're going with this. Pakistani soldiers die on the border following US aircraft bombing ?

[Hippasus]

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.

[carl]

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.

[Stan]

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.

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.

[Hippasus]

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!

[jmm99]

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

[Stan]

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!

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

[carl]

I still believe that adults should make decision based on logical and just rules (the ultimate "Big Boy Rules") -

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

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.

...piss enough of the world off, eventually they gang up you because you're a bully.

That didn't work for Germany so well either.

[Fuchs]

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.

I'll bite, but I don't know where you're going with this. Pakistani soldiers die on the border following US aircraft bombing ?

It's in the news, apparently not at your place?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rder-post.html

[Stan]

It's in the news, apparently not at your place?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rder-post.html

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