I could be wrong, but I donât even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in âdirectlyâ here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesnât matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But Iâm sure we actually both know that, so whatâs there left to say.
But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
And who makes the right decides what counts as exigent circumstances? Thatâs right. The mighty.
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
Wait, you think thereâs such a thing as an initial source of injustice?
I absolutely donât. Do you?
every fucking thing is a team sport to you people.
There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasnât me. In fact, Iâve tried to tell you numerous times that I donât care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! Iâm under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didnât make at all and hence this is a discussion where weâre talking at cross-purposes.
Check out the attached link to the source, that should make it clearer what the graph is showing.
I know what itâs showing, but âActually, Russia does veto more!â isnât the interesting part.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in âdirectlyâ here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesnât matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But Iâm sure we actually both know that, so whatâs there left to say.
I didnât sneak it in, I wrote âdirectlyâ because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly. It very much does matter who pulls the trigger. Terror groups are not UN members.
But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it, and thatâs the big reason theyâre being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasnât involved in any of them, I donât think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. Itâs politically unacceptable for Iran to say it out loud, but they have the full triad now. I believe the motivation for Iran even considering a nuclear program is precisely the fact that theyâre facing a foe they canât destroy, and donât trust to keep a peace, so their approach is to try and keep the conflict from boiling over.
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
So, now you put together a very interesting picture here. You âcan accept [âŠ] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own handsâ, and that âexigent circumstancesâ is defined by the mighty, âAs has been the case all alongâ. Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, âcan acceptâ might to make right. But you also âdonât advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleasesâ, so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. Hm. Have you ever encountered the term âCrooked Timber Conservativeâ?
I absolutely donât. Do you?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but thereâs no head vampire everything traces back to. Evil is an emergent phenomenon, not a river with a source.
There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasnât me. In fact, Iâve tried to tell you numerous times that I donât care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! Iâm under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didnât make at all and hence this is a discussion where weâre talking at cross-purposes.
I believe you were the one who brought up the comparison of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US. I just ran with it. And itâs not a competition, but a comparison. Time and time again, I see arguments made by what Iâm sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to âthe good guys should just kill all the bad guysâ, and I find the shortest, simplest way to throw a wrench in this mindset is to flip the positions and see if they recognize what theyâre doing. This either gets peopleâs gears going, or devolves into the âNo you donât get it, Iâm a Good Person.â meme, which is always funny.
The second, broader point, to put it plainly: Either there are laws, or there are no laws. And if there are no laws, then might makes right. And I believe strongly that having laws is wildly preferable.
If you will forgive a history lesson to point out a few highlights, ever since war got too expensive to be profitable, countries went to great effort to prevent it, or at least minimize it. After the 30 Years War, the powers that be effectively invented the modern state. After the Big One, they effectively invented the international community. Then the Other Big One happened, they went to troubleshoot the problem, and what they settled on as a solution is honestly kinda interesting. In essence, the vast majority of states like working together. Or, at the very least, they prefer it to war. This is to be expected, this is normal, this is how humans are. Those that arenât willing are mostly just stubborn, and can be incentivized to compromise, usually through sanctions and other pressure tactics. For those who genuinely refuse to play nice, the UN solution is to force compliance. However, even putting aside the âfucking for virginityâ paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isnât to be done lightly. The answer we ended up with is the GA, the SC, and the veto: the GA to be used for negotiations, when those fail, the SC will assist with coercion, and, if nothing works, move to enforcement. However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother. This may sound ridiculous looking at what peacekeeping looks like now, but I remind you the UN police action know as the Korean War ended with some 3mil. dead.
And if youâll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that theyâre inherently reactive and limited: you canât force a thing done, just prevent it. For example, a veto can prevent the UN from officially declaring sanctions that all members would need to follow, but it canât stop individual members from imposing them - in theory, this is the approach to be taken when a veto power is stonewalling action, and if it isnât, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isnât really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as youâre not allowed to cheat: If a country breaks the law and gets away with it, the other countries will rightfully wonder how protected they are by law. Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an âI can do what i wantâ card. If the lawbreaking continues, and thereâs no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until theyâre either brought back in line or the line disappears. It wonât happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, youâre back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
The graph you posted is interesting, but not for the reason you think. What that graph shows is the number of times a veto power announced to the world âI find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!â. What the red on that graph tell me is that instead of one veto power being outvoted and fighting a delaying action against decisions everyone else agrees with, we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
Itâs why I take a dim view of âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ. Itâs also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemiesâ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright. And, honestly, itâs why Iâm a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm âwell, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuildingâ. Which I now realize is also âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ.
but âActually, Russia does veto more!â isnât the interesting part.
Your words:
Because normal countries donât see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries donât see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members donât just plop vetos willy-nilly.
I didnât sneak it in, I wrote âdirectlyâ because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly.
Please refrain from moving goal posts. Your words:
Once again, youâre criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they havenât actually done
âŠimplying Iran is only words but no actions. Although they very much act, but through the hands of their affiliated terror groups.
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it
Doesnât sound like it, when youâre listening to their officials. Not now, not prior to Israelâs attack. So whatâs your basis for this assumption?
You âcan accept [âŠ] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own handsâ, and that âexigent circumstancesâ is defined by the mighty, âAs has been the case all alongâ.
No. The existence of these exigent circumstances never was up for debate: the occurring ethnic cleansing was not a secret. It is not like those states made up a âtrust me broâ story like for example the US did a couple of years later with Iraq. The UN knew about it but still wasnât capable to act accordingly due to being deadlocked - yet again. Hence, as was the case numerous times before and will be the case countless times in the future, states acted on their own behalf. And in this case, I can understand it, as, weâve been through this before, the existing exigent circumstances called for immediate action. I donât see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.
The main problem I have is that the UN, due to this veto architecture, is not capable of responding appropriately in situations where it, as the guardian and agent of the international law we once agreed upon, should defend this law specifically. Thereâs a backdoor for certain countries to hinder, stop, override the actions of the UN. But not for others, rendering these principles undemocratic and useless.
so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please.
Most of the times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. But that mechanism isnât here. A group of nations CAN do just as they please. For decades. And right now, they are as unhinged as ever, showing us that they no longer care what we think about that.
And itâs not a competition, but a comparison.
Time and time again, I see arguments made by what Iâm sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to âthe good guys should just kill all the bad guysâ
Fine. But since I never made that claim, please donât vent that frustration on me. I told you what Iâm criticising - the general principle irrespective of who is using it - and how little this has to do with the whole tribalistic competition between the badness of the individual actors of the Middle East conflict ⊠Frankly, these are the most toxic and useless discussions to be had on the internet. Iâm really not interested.
However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother.
But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldnât fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that canât be won. On the other hand though, these countries effectively received a perpetual get-out-of-jail card. This card frees them from consequences from their own actions, frees them from the need to compromise. All of which the other countries that werenât as privileged didnât receive. So we have a two-class system: the vast group of commoners that must play along nicely or sufficiently suck up to one of the elites to be protected (fueling political bloc formation), and the elites that can choose how much they want to play along. At the same time, this severely undermines and even destroys the effectiveness of international law, as it can at any point be halted/stalled by these countries and they canât be held responsible. It is a flaw that must be fixed, should the whole construct of international law have any form of future.
Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an âI can do what i wantâ card. If the lawbreaking continues, and thereâs no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until theyâre either brought back in line or the line disappears. It wonât happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, youâre back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
My point exactly.
âI find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!â
(X) Doubt. And big time! Look at the linked source. Most of the first 30ish? vetoes were about countriesâ membership applications. This was pure tactical political power play to secure/gain majorities but nothing you actually would send your tank for against the other political bloc.
we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
Yes. Exactly. Being a veto power is a privilege and should be honoured accordingly by the nations holding this privilege. I can see that less and less.
I take a dim view of âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ.
It depends on the circumstances. And, letâs be real, most donât really care about these but rather only about whoâs doing it. Back at the tribalistic m.o. For some, it is just fundamentally wrong because it was âNATOâ/âthe USâ and they build their entire (political) world view around the core principle of opposing them. Iâm not implying youâre one of them, but I guess youâll know what kind of people I mean. On the other hand, youâve got those that cheer for the US whatever they do. Who donât care about the countries on the receiving end of US military ambitions, because it is the land of the free bringing democracy. But weâre speaking about this case specifically, and I really have to say, given these specific circumstances, I can understand why NATO did what they did.
Itâs also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemiesâ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright.
Well. I donât. Because Iâm certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldnât resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was âonlyâ the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldnât kidnap Maduro with impunity or bomb other countries just as he pleases. He also would have to resort to stirring up as much dirt with the means he has at hands. But his goals and ambitions would remain the same power-hungry, criminal and outright unhinged. Same with the Mullahs.
Correct. The amounts used donât affect any of that.
Please refrain from moving goal posts.
Likewise. My claim isnât that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesnât look like an attempt at nation-destruction in any serious way. If they did, it would look like⊠well, what Israel is doing to them right now. So, yknow, doing it again.
The existence of these exigent circumstances never was up for debate: [âŠ] I donât see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.
And thatâs the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. Thatâs the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what Iâve seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the âwell, dictator, illegitimateâ opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures itâs justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going âWhat, you did it too!â. Hell, right now, the US and Israel are engaged in a war that they canât even give an excuse for, and Carney, who just came back from Davos and the âremove the sign from the windowâ speech put the sign right back were it was. Your entire argument works perfectly as long as thereâs either an absolute judge of right, or a universal agreement of what right is, but if that were true that consensus would be law and there wouldnât be a need to break the law in the first place.
The main problem I have is that the UN, due to this veto architecture, is not capable of responding appropriately in situations where it, as the guardian and agent of the international law we once agreed upon, should defend this law specifically. Thereâs a backdoor for certain countries to hinder, stop, override the actions of the UN. But not for others, rendering these principles undemocratic and useless.
This is a fair complaint. But I point again to the problem it was trying to solve: to make a UN, you have to convince countries to give up some of their sovereignty to an external force. The League of Nations failed because A) a bunch of countries left the minute they didnât like a ruling, and B) a bunch didnât even join because they didnât wanna risk even getting to that point. The veto was a way to coax them into the community and get them to see the value in staying, instead of taking their toys and leaving. And if that sounds fucked to you, Iâd point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.
so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please.
Most of the times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. But that mechanism isnât here. A group of nations CAN do just as they please. For decades. And right now, they are as unhinged as ever, showing us that they no longer care what we think about that.
I⊠no. The âbutâ there doesnât do anything. The rest of the statement is unrelated to the first sentence, and the first sentence is what Iâm pointing at. You say you care about the underlying mechanisms, but I donât see you making the connection here.
But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldnât fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that canât be won.
Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of âweâre taking you all with usâ and two are run by geriatrics who clearly havenât made peace with their own mortality, one of whichâs warchief just said theyâre doing Armageddon to bring Jesus back. Not to mention, if taken for granted, it would mean that any country with a nuke is incentivized to immediately get troops involved into any dispute that may interest another power, just to mark the territory.
My point exactly.
But the nuance I was making is this part: âthe veto itself is still the sameâ. The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking. It alone is not exactly fantastic, but is limited. Itâs the second part that turns it gamebreaking.
(X) Doubt. And big time! Look at the linked source. Most of the first 30ish? vetoes were about countriesâ membership applications. This was pure tactical political power play to secure/gain majorities but nothing you actually would send your tank for against the other political bloc.
âJainâ. Itâs an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.
It depends on the circumstances.
The problem with this is the same as with the âmostlyâ above. Though I am reminded of an old Chris Rock routine (no, not that one) where he talks about OJ and the murder of his wife, and the repeating punchline is âNow Iâm not saying he shouldâve done it, but I understandâ. Thereâs a big gap between âI understandâ and âhe shouldâve done itâ.
Well. I donât. Because Iâm certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldnât resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was âonlyâ the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldnât kidnap Maduro with impunity or bomb other countries just as he pleases. He also would have to resort to stirring up as much dirt with the means he has at hands. But his goals and ambitions would remain the same power-hungry, criminal and outright unhinged. Same with the Mullahs.
âŠIâm tempted to say âyouâre doing it againâ again, but actually this poses an interesting question: say, for example, Iran had US military possibilities. Like, somewhere in 2024, they somehow get ahold of, IDK, a US carrier group or two, and then proceed to use it to bomb Israel to force them to get out of Gaza and retreat⊠letâs say back into the 1967 borders. Would you approve?
Correct. The amounts used donât affect any of that.
Again, your words:
SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries.
Frankly, graph and link show that this is not true.
My claim isnât that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesnât look like an attempt at nation-destruction in any serious way. If they did, it would look like⊠well, what Israel is doing to them right now.
Youâre mixing up aspiration and possibilities.
And thatâs the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. Thatâs the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what Iâve seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the âwell, dictator, illegitimateâ opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures itâs justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going âWhat, you did it too!â.
NATO 1999: evident violations of basic human rights. Do you agree?
Maduro: IS a dictator and IS illegitimate, but still I say abducting him like that is wrong.
Russia: NATO or any of its member states didnât invade a neighbouring country in the biggest war since WW2 in order to annex and expand the own borders. I know too well that Russia and their sycophants love to play that âjust mirroring NATO!!1â card as a shabby veil to hide their indigenous blatant imperialism under. But that âargumentâ has always just been a steaming pile of bs.
And if that sounds fucked to you, Iâd point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.
It isnât restrictive as it didnât hinder them to do what they wanted to do all along. Rather, in a world of Putins and Trumps, no side is trying to be the âbetterâ side by following the rules - more or less. Instead, they released all brakes and donât care anymore. Yes, I understood your explanation on why the UN was designed that way, but that cannot be the end of the story. Especially, after seeing what kind of problems come along with it. This thing needs to be further evolved instead of just saying: well, it is what it is. Otherwise, as can be seen right now, the whole thing will go down.
Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of âweâre taking you all with usâ and two are run by geriatrics who clearly havenât made peace with their own mortality, one of whichâs warchief just said theyâre doing Armageddon to bring Jesus back. Not to mention, if taken for granted, it would mean that any country with a nuke is incentivized to immediately get troops involved into any dispute that may interest another power, just to mark the territory.
Well, it is a dangerous world we live in, merely hanging by a thread. No point hiding from that hard truth. The only thing keeping us kinda safe is that neither of these geriatrics has the power to completely single-handedly actually fire the nukes. Thereâs other people in the lines of command from his button to the ship/silo carrying the warhead that the lunacy of only one mustnât necessarily mean the end of us all. But a UN, which especially is toothless against the veto peers, is of no use for the disputes between the nuclear elite.
The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking.
Since weâre eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If thereâs the possibility, there will be law-breaking. Hence, since the law-breaking will occur, you must ensure that it can be punished.
Itâs an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.
An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, thereâs no point announcing it.
Thereâs a big gap between âI understandâ and âhe shouldâve done itâ.
Well. In a world with the UN working the way it does (or rather doesnât), weâll face that dilemma time and time again. Instead of reacting to urgent causes like violation of human rights, we will argue about the existence of these urgent causes, their legitimacy, who brought them forward, what they might gain from it, etc⊠but we wonât respond to it, helping those in need. As said, I made my choice regarding this specific intervention - knowing that Iâd also prefer a system that would actually work internationally and would abolish the need (and possibility) of unilateral action. But until we have thatâŠ
Would you approve?
That largely depends on what you mean by âapproveâ and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many âJewish infidelsâ as possible wonât find my âapprovalâ, especially as in advocating, ever. But an hypothetical Iran without the wish to simply annihilate Israel targetting IDF and other legitimate targets to get them to retreat to their international borders, I could âapproveâ, as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.
Frankly, graph and link show that this is not true.
The countries on that graph, by virtue of being on that graph, are not normal countries. That precisely was my point.
Youâre mixing up aspiration and possibilities.
Possibly, but right now, one of the two countries you brought up talks about destruction, and the other is currently, as we speak, bombing desalination plants. If the possibilities were different, maybe the aspirations would be as well.
Do you agree?
And thatâs the thing: What if I donât? The inherent problem remains: if the kind of consensus you assume were real, it would just be law.
Yes, I understood your explanation on why the UN was designed that way, but that cannot be the end of the story.
That much is, at least, clear, the way things worked so far is pretty much over. Unless youâre Mark Carney, apparently.
Thereâs other people in the lines of command
From what Iâve seen these âother peopleâ go through with in just the last week or two, Iâm not exactly heartened.
Since weâre eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If thereâs the possibility, there will be law-breaking. Hence, since the law-breaking will occur, you must ensure that it can be punished.
Fully agree. But punishing law-breaking by breaking the law is just the Dirty Harry thing again.
An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, thereâs no point announcing it.
âŠYes?
That largely depends on what you mean by âapproveâ and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many âJewish infidelsâ as possible wonât find my âapprovalâ, especially as in advocating, ever. But an hypothetical Iran without the wish to simply annihilate Israel targetting IDF and other legitimate targets to get them to retreat to their international borders, I could âapproveâ, as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.
Reasonable. Now, suppose they donât have that kind of muscle, and instead all they can do is, IDK, try and muster a bunch of regional, allied or loosely affiliated militias to maybe try and enforce a half-blockade of shipping through the Red Sea, or maybe attack a few army outposts on the opposite end of the countryâŠ
The countries on that graph, by virtue of being on that graph, are not normal countries. That precisely was my point.
Of course they are not normal countries - but vastly privileged ones. Exactly the point Iâm trying to convey. Why would we talk about ânormalâ countries here, when the veto is exclusively available to these few? And - thatâs the point of the graph and the linked list - these few privileged countries made ample use of their veto power. Even for trivia such as admitting country xyz to the UN - a question neither of them would go to war for with each other. Have we settled this point?
one of the two countries you brought up talks about destruction
That is again severely downplaying the actions of Iran. Iran has actively funded, equipped, supported⊠terrorist groups that spread terror, death and destruction over Israel for decades. Given the situation Iran is in, they are putting a lot of effort into the cause of fighting Israel as a country, with the clear stated goal to do so to destroy it. I really donât get why you wouldnât acknowledge that, as it doesnât take anything away from Israel being wrong for their own actions. You literally donât lose anything, you still can criticise Israel for everything theyâre responsible of.
And thatâs the thing: What if I donât?
You wouldnât agree that there were violations of basic human rights occurring there? Are you really sure?
if the kind of consensus you assume were real, it would just be law.
It already is law. Just the body destined to enforce it has been stripped of the full authority to do so. We gave ourselves a police but allowed the biggest land owners to prohibit them access to their property whenever they feel like it and irrespective of what violations of these laws they do.
From what Iâve seen these âother peopleâ go through with in just the last week or two, Iâm not exactly heartened.
Thereâs a very strong difference in going through with dropping bombs targetted to buildings of an enemy army, knowing the destruction will be limited to a couple of hundred metres at worst, and going through with launching weapons that will inevitably not only end the enemy but also you and your family, the entire world. Donât you think?
But punishing law-breaking by breaking the law is just the Dirty Harry thing again.
Just watching the law-breaking idly is also just Dirty Harry. Only that you chose to accept your fate of being object to the lawlessness of the others. Why would a country do that?
âŠYes?
Well, you said ââJainâ. Itâs an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.â to me raising the point that the veto powers used their vetos for tactical political power play rather than solely serious matters theyâd actually be ready to go to war over. To which I reply that an announcement must be treated as a veto, hence it only works if the other side musnât see it as a bluff. Otherwise, the point of the announcement vanishes.
Now, suppose they donât have that kind of muscle, and instead all they can do is, IDK, try and muster a bunch of regional, allied or loosely affiliated militias to maybe try and enforce a half-blockade of shipping through the Red Sea, or maybe attack a few army outposts on the opposite end of the countryâŠ
âŠexcept they did that - using allied militias/terrorist groups under their guidance and equipment - for decades already, while Israel decided it would be a smart move to bomb the whole country - to achieve what? - last week. Normally, a reaction comes after the action. And thatâs exactly my problem in that entire conflict. People love to paint a conflict black and white that is filled to the brim with a plethora of entangled shades.
Of course they are not normal countries - but vastly privileged ones. Exactly the point Iâm trying to convey. Why would we talk about ânormalâ countries here, when the veto is exclusively available to these few? And - thatâs the point of the graph and the linked list - these few privileged countries made ample use of their veto power.
Because the original remark was âexplicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the USâ, and my whole point is one of those countries is normal, two arenât, and the last one should be normal, but very much is not. So when you put the four in a sentence, it sounds reasonable to assume everyone can call on a veto whenever, when, in fact, the odd one out is the only one thatâs not an outlier.
Even for trivia such as admitting country xyz to the UN - a question neither of them would go to war for with each other. Have we settled this point?
This is a digression, but: this is not trivia. Accession control is vote control. Also, a legitimacy claim. I can only imagine Chinaâs reaction to Taiwan getting back in.
That is again severely downplaying the actions of Iran. Iran has actively funded, equipped, supported⊠terrorist groups that spread terror, death and destruction over Israel for decades. Given the situation Iran is in, they are putting a lot of effort into the cause of fighting Israel as a country, with the clear stated goal to do so to destroy it. I really donât get why you wouldnât acknowledge that, as it doesnât take anything away from Israel being wrong for their own actions. You literally donât lose anything, you still can criticise Israel for everything theyâre responsible of.
Because I donât think youâre being even-handed, so Iâm trying to knock you out of the talking points and put you into the other sideâs shoes. For exampleâŠ
âŠexcept they did that - using allied militias/terrorist groups under their guidance and equipment - for decades already, while Israel decided it would be a smart move to bomb the whole country - to achieve what? - last week. Normally, a reaction comes after the action. And thatâs exactly my problem in that entire conflict. People love to paint a conflict black and white that is filled to the brim with a plethora of entangled shades.
âŠthe âactionâ only happened last week, but the hypothetical wasnât about self-defense, it was about illegal intervention in prevention of gross human rights violations. Those didnât begin last week, did they? Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?
You wouldnât agree that there were violations of basic human rights occurring there? Are you really sure?
Oh, there were. I was replying to the whole block with the question.
We gave ourselves a police but allowed the biggest land owners to prohibit them access to their property whenever they feel like it and irrespective of what violations of these laws they do.
âŠWell, the police shouldnât be able to just access your property, not without a warrant. That some fatcats are warrant-proof is true, though.
Thereâs a very strong difference in going through with dropping bombs targetted to buildings of an enemy army, knowing the destruction will be limited to a couple of hundred metres at worst, and going through with launching weapons that will inevitably not only end the enemy but also you and your family, the entire world. Donât you think?
IDK, theyâre already making excuses, whatâs one more? In fact, we already have one: Jesus is coming back, you wonât die, youâll be raptured! Like, this isnât just bad governance, these people act like a fucking apocalypse cult.
Just watching the law-breaking idly is also just Dirty Harry.
Well, more like the Uvalde cops, I guess. Or those cops in that town run by scientologists.
be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the USâ, and my whole point is one of those countries is normal, two arenât, and the last one should be normal, but very much is not.
Frankly, none of these countries is normal at all. It is a bit concerning that you apparently think otherwise.
So when you put the four in a sentence, it sounds reasonable to assume everyone can call on a veto whenever
Not everyone, but two of these CAN call a veto whenever, to the benefit of whoever⊠Why should we pretend it isnât so? Again, while youâre apparently very much focussed on who actually used the veto when, I am not. I am criticising the fact that the mere possibility exists.
This is a digression, but: this is not trivia. Accession control is vote control.
Yea⊠pretty hard to establish an international institution to handle international relation between countries if you end up using your vetos for countries you donât even have any direct dispute with just to mess with your opponent. Political power play, no reason to actually go to war over.
Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?
Was Iran attacked by Israel before they started to fund and steer all of their terror pawns in Arab countries several decades ago? Before they announced their objective to eliminate Israel?
That some fatcats are warrant-proof is true, though.
âŠand these fatcats can extend their shield against any warrant to anyone. That is a problem.
IDK, theyâre already making excuses, whatâs one more?
Talk is cheap. Actually pushing the button that will end the wold isnât.
Check out the attached link to the source, that should make it clearer what the graph is showing.
Sure! Sounds just like him. Non-stop winning.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in âdirectlyâ here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesnât matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But Iâm sure we actually both know that, so whatâs there left to say.
But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
I absolutely donât. Do you?
There has been only one person trying to drag the whole discussion into a competition between Israel/US and Iran/Russia. And that wasnât me. In fact, Iâve tried to tell you numerous times that I donât care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! Iâm under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didnât make at all and hence this is a discussion where weâre talking at cross-purposes.
I know what itâs showing, but âActually, Russia does veto more!â isnât the interesting part.
I didnât sneak it in, I wrote âdirectlyâ because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly. It very much does matter who pulls the trigger. Terror groups are not UN members.
Frankly, I think they already have accepted it, and thatâs the big reason theyâre being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasnât involved in any of them, I donât think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. Itâs politically unacceptable for Iran to say it out loud, but they have the full triad now. I believe the motivation for Iran even considering a nuclear program is precisely the fact that theyâre facing a foe they canât destroy, and donât trust to keep a peace, so their approach is to try and keep the conflict from boiling over.
So, now you put together a very interesting picture here. You âcan accept [âŠ] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own handsâ, and that âexigent circumstancesâ is defined by the mighty, âAs has been the case all alongâ. Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, âcan acceptâ might to make right. But you also âdonât advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleasesâ, so you accept might to make right sometimes, but other times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. Hm. Have you ever encountered the term âCrooked Timber Conservativeâ?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but thereâs no head vampire everything traces back to. Evil is an emergent phenomenon, not a river with a source.
I believe you were the one who brought up the comparison of Iran and Russia, and Israel and the US. I just ran with it. And itâs not a competition, but a comparison. Time and time again, I see arguments made by what Iâm sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to âthe good guys should just kill all the bad guysâ, and I find the shortest, simplest way to throw a wrench in this mindset is to flip the positions and see if they recognize what theyâre doing. This either gets peopleâs gears going, or devolves into the âNo you donât get it, Iâm a Good Person.â meme, which is always funny.
The second, broader point, to put it plainly: Either there are laws, or there are no laws. And if there are no laws, then might makes right. And I believe strongly that having laws is wildly preferable.
If you will forgive a history lesson to point out a few highlights, ever since war got too expensive to be profitable, countries went to great effort to prevent it, or at least minimize it. After the 30 Years War, the powers that be effectively invented the modern state. After the Big One, they effectively invented the international community. Then the Other Big One happened, they went to troubleshoot the problem, and what they settled on as a solution is honestly kinda interesting. In essence, the vast majority of states like working together. Or, at the very least, they prefer it to war. This is to be expected, this is normal, this is how humans are. Those that arenât willing are mostly just stubborn, and can be incentivized to compromise, usually through sanctions and other pressure tactics. For those who genuinely refuse to play nice, the UN solution is to force compliance. However, even putting aside the âfucking for virginityâ paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isnât to be done lightly. The answer we ended up with is the GA, the SC, and the veto: the GA to be used for negotiations, when those fail, the SC will assist with coercion, and, if nothing works, move to enforcement. However, to prevent enforcement turning into Another Other Big One, the major powers were given the veto, to block actions that would end with them fighting eachother. This may sound ridiculous looking at what peacekeeping looks like now, but I remind you the UN police action know as the Korean War ended with some 3mil. dead.
And if youâll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that theyâre inherently reactive and limited: you canât force a thing done, just prevent it. For example, a veto can prevent the UN from officially declaring sanctions that all members would need to follow, but it canât stop individual members from imposing them - in theory, this is the approach to be taken when a veto power is stonewalling action, and if it isnât, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isnât really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as youâre not allowed to cheat: If a country breaks the law and gets away with it, the other countries will rightfully wonder how protected they are by law. Worse yet, if a country breaks the law, then hides under a veto to get away with it, the veto itself is still the same as a regular veto stonewall, but instead of freezing an issue or kicking the can down the road, it has turned into an âI can do what i wantâ card. If the lawbreaking continues, and thereâs no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until theyâre either brought back in line or the line disappears. It wonât happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, youâre back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.
The graph you posted is interesting, but not for the reason you think. What that graph shows is the number of times a veto power announced to the world âI find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!â. What the red on that graph tell me is that instead of one veto power being outvoted and fighting a delaying action against decisions everyone else agrees with, we now have a situation of the international community facing at least two veto powers wilding out. This is not good.
Itâs why I take a dim view of âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ. Itâs also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemiesâ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright. And, honestly, itâs why Iâm a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm âwell, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuildingâ. Which I now realize is also âyes, itâs illegal, but itâs the right thing to doâ.
Your words:
Please refrain from moving goal posts. Your words:
âŠimplying Iran is only words but no actions. Although they very much act, but through the hands of their affiliated terror groups.
Doesnât sound like it, when youâre listening to their officials. Not now, not prior to Israelâs attack. So whatâs your basis for this assumption?
No. The existence of these exigent circumstances never was up for debate: the occurring ethnic cleansing was not a secret. It is not like those states made up a âtrust me broâ story like for example the US did a couple of years later with Iraq. The UN knew about it but still wasnât capable to act accordingly due to being deadlocked - yet again. Hence, as was the case numerous times before and will be the case countless times in the future, states acted on their own behalf. And in this case, I can understand it, as, weâve been through this before, the existing exigent circumstances called for immediate action. I donât see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.
The main problem I have is that the UN, due to this veto architecture, is not capable of responding appropriately in situations where it, as the guardian and agent of the international law we once agreed upon, should defend this law specifically. Thereâs a backdoor for certain countries to hinder, stop, override the actions of the UN. But not for others, rendering these principles undemocratic and useless.
Most of the times, nations must be limited and not do as they please. But that mechanism isnât here. A group of nations CAN do just as they please. For decades. And right now, they are as unhinged as ever, showing us that they no longer care what we think about that.
Fine. But since I never made that claim, please donât vent that frustration on me. I told you what Iâm criticising - the general principle irrespective of who is using it - and how little this has to do with the whole tribalistic competition between the badness of the individual actors of the Middle East conflict ⊠Frankly, these are the most toxic and useless discussions to be had on the internet. Iâm really not interested.
But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldnât fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that canât be won. On the other hand though, these countries effectively received a perpetual get-out-of-jail card. This card frees them from consequences from their own actions, frees them from the need to compromise. All of which the other countries that werenât as privileged didnât receive. So we have a two-class system: the vast group of commoners that must play along nicely or sufficiently suck up to one of the elites to be protected (fueling political bloc formation), and the elites that can choose how much they want to play along. At the same time, this severely undermines and even destroys the effectiveness of international law, as it can at any point be halted/stalled by these countries and they canât be held responsible. It is a flaw that must be fixed, should the whole construct of international law have any form of future.
My point exactly.
(X) Doubt. And big time! Look at the linked source. Most of the first 30ish? vetoes were about countriesâ membership applications. This was pure tactical political power play to secure/gain majorities but nothing you actually would send your tank for against the other political bloc.
Yes. Exactly. Being a veto power is a privilege and should be honoured accordingly by the nations holding this privilege. I can see that less and less.
It depends on the circumstances. And, letâs be real, most donât really care about these but rather only about whoâs doing it. Back at the tribalistic m.o. For some, it is just fundamentally wrong because it was âNATOâ/âthe USâ and they build their entire (political) world view around the core principle of opposing them. Iâm not implying youâre one of them, but I guess youâll know what kind of people I mean. On the other hand, youâve got those that cheer for the US whatever they do. Who donât care about the countries on the receiving end of US military ambitions, because it is the land of the free bringing democracy. But weâre speaking about this case specifically, and I really have to say, given these specific circumstances, I can understand why NATO did what they did.
Well. I donât. Because Iâm certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldnât resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was âonlyâ the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldnât kidnap Maduro with impunity or bomb other countries just as he pleases. He also would have to resort to stirring up as much dirt with the means he has at hands. But his goals and ambitions would remain the same power-hungry, criminal and outright unhinged. Same with the Mullahs.
Correct. The amounts used donât affect any of that.
Likewise. My claim isnât that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesnât look like an attempt at nation-destruction in any serious way. If they did, it would look like⊠well, what Israel is doing to them right now. So, yknow, doing it again.
And thatâs the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. Thatâs the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what Iâve seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the âwell, dictator, illegitimateâ opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures itâs justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going âWhat, you did it too!â. Hell, right now, the US and Israel are engaged in a war that they canât even give an excuse for, and Carney, who just came back from Davos and the âremove the sign from the windowâ speech put the sign right back were it was. Your entire argument works perfectly as long as thereâs either an absolute judge of right, or a universal agreement of what right is, but if that were true that consensus would be law and there wouldnât be a need to break the law in the first place.
This is a fair complaint. But I point again to the problem it was trying to solve: to make a UN, you have to convince countries to give up some of their sovereignty to an external force. The League of Nations failed because A) a bunch of countries left the minute they didnât like a ruling, and B) a bunch didnât even join because they didnât wanna risk even getting to that point. The veto was a way to coax them into the community and get them to see the value in staying, instead of taking their toys and leaving. And if that sounds fucked to you, Iâd point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.
I⊠no. The âbutâ there doesnât do anything. The rest of the statement is unrelated to the first sentence, and the first sentence is what Iâm pointing at. You say you care about the underlying mechanisms, but I donât see you making the connection here.
Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of âweâre taking you all with usâ and two are run by geriatrics who clearly havenât made peace with their own mortality, one of whichâs warchief just said theyâre doing Armageddon to bring Jesus back. Not to mention, if taken for granted, it would mean that any country with a nuke is incentivized to immediately get troops involved into any dispute that may interest another power, just to mark the territory.
But the nuance I was making is this part: âthe veto itself is still the sameâ. The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking. It alone is not exactly fantastic, but is limited. Itâs the second part that turns it gamebreaking.
âJainâ. Itâs an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.
The problem with this is the same as with the âmostlyâ above. Though I am reminded of an old Chris Rock routine (no, not that one) where he talks about OJ and the murder of his wife, and the repeating punchline is âNow Iâm not saying he shouldâve done it, but I understandâ. Thereâs a big gap between âI understandâ and âhe shouldâve done itâ.
âŠIâm tempted to say âyouâre doing it againâ again, but actually this poses an interesting question: say, for example, Iran had US military possibilities. Like, somewhere in 2024, they somehow get ahold of, IDK, a US carrier group or two, and then proceed to use it to bomb Israel to force them to get out of Gaza and retreat⊠letâs say back into the 1967 borders. Would you approve?
Again, your words:
Frankly, graph and link show that this is not true.
Youâre mixing up aspiration and possibilities.
NATO 1999: evident violations of basic human rights. Do you agree?
Maduro: IS a dictator and IS illegitimate, but still I say abducting him like that is wrong.
Russia: NATO or any of its member states didnât invade a neighbouring country in the biggest war since WW2 in order to annex and expand the own borders. I know too well that Russia and their sycophants love to play that âjust mirroring NATO!!1â card as a shabby veil to hide their indigenous blatant imperialism under. But that âargumentâ has always just been a steaming pile of bs.
It isnât restrictive as it didnât hinder them to do what they wanted to do all along. Rather, in a world of Putins and Trumps, no side is trying to be the âbetterâ side by following the rules - more or less. Instead, they released all brakes and donât care anymore. Yes, I understood your explanation on why the UN was designed that way, but that cannot be the end of the story. Especially, after seeing what kind of problems come along with it. This thing needs to be further evolved instead of just saying: well, it is what it is. Otherwise, as can be seen right now, the whole thing will go down.
Well, it is a dangerous world we live in, merely hanging by a thread. No point hiding from that hard truth. The only thing keeping us kinda safe is that neither of these geriatrics has the power to completely single-handedly actually fire the nukes. Thereâs other people in the lines of command from his button to the ship/silo carrying the warhead that the lunacy of only one mustnât necessarily mean the end of us all. But a UN, which especially is toothless against the veto peers, is of no use for the disputes between the nuclear elite.
Since weâre eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If thereâs the possibility, there will be law-breaking. Hence, since the law-breaking will occur, you must ensure that it can be punished.
An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, thereâs no point announcing it.
Well. In a world with the UN working the way it does (or rather doesnât), weâll face that dilemma time and time again. Instead of reacting to urgent causes like violation of human rights, we will argue about the existence of these urgent causes, their legitimacy, who brought them forward, what they might gain from it, etc⊠but we wonât respond to it, helping those in need. As said, I made my choice regarding this specific intervention - knowing that Iâd also prefer a system that would actually work internationally and would abolish the need (and possibility) of unilateral action. But until we have thatâŠ
That largely depends on what you mean by âapproveâ and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many âJewish infidelsâ as possible wonât find my âapprovalâ, especially as in advocating, ever. But an hypothetical Iran without the wish to simply annihilate Israel targetting IDF and other legitimate targets to get them to retreat to their international borders, I could âapproveâ, as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.
The countries on that graph, by virtue of being on that graph, are not normal countries. That precisely was my point.
Possibly, but right now, one of the two countries you brought up talks about destruction, and the other is currently, as we speak, bombing desalination plants. If the possibilities were different, maybe the aspirations would be as well.
And thatâs the thing: What if I donât? The inherent problem remains: if the kind of consensus you assume were real, it would just be law.
That much is, at least, clear, the way things worked so far is pretty much over. Unless youâre Mark Carney, apparently.
From what Iâve seen these âother peopleâ go through with in just the last week or two, Iâm not exactly heartened.
Fully agree. But punishing law-breaking by breaking the law is just the Dirty Harry thing again.
âŠYes?
Reasonable. Now, suppose they donât have that kind of muscle, and instead all they can do is, IDK, try and muster a bunch of regional, allied or loosely affiliated militias to maybe try and enforce a half-blockade of shipping through the Red Sea, or maybe attack a few army outposts on the opposite end of the countryâŠ
Of course they are not normal countries - but vastly privileged ones. Exactly the point Iâm trying to convey. Why would we talk about ânormalâ countries here, when the veto is exclusively available to these few? And - thatâs the point of the graph and the linked list - these few privileged countries made ample use of their veto power. Even for trivia such as admitting country xyz to the UN - a question neither of them would go to war for with each other. Have we settled this point?
That is again severely downplaying the actions of Iran. Iran has actively funded, equipped, supported⊠terrorist groups that spread terror, death and destruction over Israel for decades. Given the situation Iran is in, they are putting a lot of effort into the cause of fighting Israel as a country, with the clear stated goal to do so to destroy it. I really donât get why you wouldnât acknowledge that, as it doesnât take anything away from Israel being wrong for their own actions. You literally donât lose anything, you still can criticise Israel for everything theyâre responsible of.
You wouldnât agree that there were violations of basic human rights occurring there? Are you really sure?
It already is law. Just the body destined to enforce it has been stripped of the full authority to do so. We gave ourselves a police but allowed the biggest land owners to prohibit them access to their property whenever they feel like it and irrespective of what violations of these laws they do.
Thereâs a very strong difference in going through with dropping bombs targetted to buildings of an enemy army, knowing the destruction will be limited to a couple of hundred metres at worst, and going through with launching weapons that will inevitably not only end the enemy but also you and your family, the entire world. Donât you think?
Just watching the law-breaking idly is also just Dirty Harry. Only that you chose to accept your fate of being object to the lawlessness of the others. Why would a country do that?
Well, you said ââJainâ. Itâs an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.â to me raising the point that the veto powers used their vetos for tactical political power play rather than solely serious matters theyâd actually be ready to go to war over. To which I reply that an announcement must be treated as a veto, hence it only works if the other side musnât see it as a bluff. Otherwise, the point of the announcement vanishes.
âŠexcept they did that - using allied militias/terrorist groups under their guidance and equipment - for decades already, while Israel decided it would be a smart move to bomb the whole country - to achieve what? - last week. Normally, a reaction comes after the action. And thatâs exactly my problem in that entire conflict. People love to paint a conflict black and white that is filled to the brim with a plethora of entangled shades.
Because the original remark was âexplicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the USâ, and my whole point is one of those countries is normal, two arenât, and the last one should be normal, but very much is not. So when you put the four in a sentence, it sounds reasonable to assume everyone can call on a veto whenever, when, in fact, the odd one out is the only one thatâs not an outlier.
This is a digression, but: this is not trivia. Accession control is vote control. Also, a legitimacy claim. I can only imagine Chinaâs reaction to Taiwan getting back in.
Because I donât think youâre being even-handed, so Iâm trying to knock you out of the talking points and put you into the other sideâs shoes. For exampleâŠ
âŠthe âactionâ only happened last week, but the hypothetical wasnât about self-defense, it was about illegal intervention in prevention of gross human rights violations. Those didnât begin last week, did they? Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?
Oh, there were. I was replying to the whole block with the question.
âŠWell, the police shouldnât be able to just access your property, not without a warrant. That some fatcats are warrant-proof is true, though.
IDK, theyâre already making excuses, whatâs one more? In fact, we already have one: Jesus is coming back, you wonât die, youâll be raptured! Like, this isnât just bad governance, these people act like a fucking apocalypse cult.
Well, more like the Uvalde cops, I guess. Or those cops in that town run by scientologists.
Ah. Yes, exactly, I agree.
Frankly, none of these countries is normal at all. It is a bit concerning that you apparently think otherwise.
Not everyone, but two of these CAN call a veto whenever, to the benefit of whoever⊠Why should we pretend it isnât so? Again, while youâre apparently very much focussed on who actually used the veto when, I am not. I am criticising the fact that the mere possibility exists.
Yea⊠pretty hard to establish an international institution to handle international relation between countries if you end up using your vetos for countries you donât even have any direct dispute with just to mess with your opponent. Political power play, no reason to actually go to war over.
Was Iran attacked by Israel before they started to fund and steer all of their terror pawns in Arab countries several decades ago? Before they announced their objective to eliminate Israel?
âŠand these fatcats can extend their shield against any warrant to anyone. That is a problem.
Talk is cheap. Actually pushing the button that will end the wold isnât.