You can leave the “antisemite” in, as Sartre demonstrates in the essay, “the Jew” is just a blank cypher anyway.

Unironically, yes

I’m not interested in my answer, I want to know what you think. Do you also think it is yes?

You mean in reality? Clearly no - the 12-day war was a year ago.

Given that in this case, Iran wouldn’t have access to the US carrier group or two from the other hypothetical example, but rather the same financially dependent religiously fanatical fighters as in reality (I presume?)

Well, they do also have the PFJ JPF JPPF PFLP, I guess. Splitters…

A huge factor for this personal legitimisation would be if it actually could end the violation of human rights and not just add up to it. And here, the hypothetical Iran with the carrier groups would be far more effective (and hence legitimised) than the hypothetical Iran that enables some militias to indiscriminately fire makeshift rockets across the border, hoping to hit something meaningful.

Now, this is …novel. I was gonna say “ends justify the means”, but this isn’t even that, it’s legitimacy through… competency? Fait accompli? Like, would it be retroactively criminalized if they fuck up? Or is the intervention presumed illegitimate unless it works? Where was that joke from? “Gentlemen, here’s the new kidnapping case, obviously I’ll be taking you off duty, hand in your badges, you can have them back when you find the girl.”

I’ve heard multiple stories of people spending stupid money on goldplated Trump $1000 bills and trying to deposit them in a bank.

I gave you an answer. Shit, I’m giving you your answer: yes. I don’t see how that helps your case, but have at it:

Would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, granting that Israel will bomb Iran last week.

Because it was a rhetorical question, posed in callout of your bad faith argument. It’s entirely irrelevant. It can even be “yes”, as you claim it: Would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, granting that Israel will bomb Iran last week.

You’re the interventionist here, make your argument.

No, I’m not letting you change the subject. I told you, either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you support humanitarian intervention, then whether by jet or by rifle shouldn’t matter.

So, you’re willing to stand behind your principle of interventionism, as long as the people you don’t like can only do it hypothetically?

That wasn’t the question either. The original question was would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through overwhelming firepower, and you said yes. Then the next question was would you approve a humanitarian intervention, by Iran, in Israel, in 2024 CE, to force the IDF withdrawal to the 1967 borders, prosecuted through the gaggle of militias they actually have access to, and you started yelling “terrorist terrorist” and making bad faith arguments. If the first answer is yes, but the second makes you this uncomfortable, it would be a good idea to think about why.

Frankly, none of these countries is normal at all. It is a bit concerning that you apparently think otherwise.

Normal isn’t a compliment here, it just means they’re not too far outside of what you run into out there, at least foreign policy-wise. For example, Pakistan springs to mind: fundamentalists with a vendetta, terrorists, and a nuclear program. Sounds about right.

Not everyone, but two of these CAN call a veto whenever, to the benefit of whoever… Why should we pretend it isn’t so? Again, while you’re apparently very much focussed on who actually used the veto when, I am not. I am criticising the fact that the mere possibility exists.

…Honestly, I was gonna say overuse would render it meaningless, but with the last week being what it is, It may very well be moot at this point.

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?

Milosevic didn’t attack NATO either. Once again, the hypothetical wasn’t about self-defense. It was about illegal intervention in prevention of gross human rights violations.

Of course they are not normal countries - but vastly privileged ones. Exactly the point I’m trying to convey. Why would we talk about “normal” countries here, when the veto is exclusively available to these few? And - that’s 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 “explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US”, and my whole point is one of those countries is normal, two aren’t, 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 that’s 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 China’s 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 don’t get why you wouldn’t acknowledge that, as it doesn’t take anything away from Israel being wrong for their own actions. You literally don’t lose anything, you still can criticise Israel for everything they’re responsible of.

Because I don’t think you’re being even-handed, so I’m trying to knock you out of the talking points and put you into the other side’s shoes. For example…

…except 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 that’s 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.

…the ‘action’ only happened last week, but the hypothetical wasn’t about self-defense, it was about illegal intervention in prevention of gross human rights violations. Those didn’t begin last week, did they? Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?

You wouldn’t 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.

…Well, the police shouldn’t be able to just access your property, not without a warrant. That some fatcats are warrant-proof is true, though.

There’s 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. Don’t you think?

IDK, they’re already making excuses, what’s one more? In fact, we already have one: Jesus is coming back, you won’t die, you’ll be raptured! Like, this isn’t 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.

Well, you said ““Jain”.[…]

Ah. Yes, exactly, I agree.

The thought of the Great Leader is si magnificent it reverberates backwards through time!

somehow

I mean, they did just kill his dad.

If I were a more paranoid kind, I’d wonder if it has anything to do with Valve getting behind Linux.

The painting is a meme, bu the character is Shadoweheart, from Baldurs Gate 3.

Booooo!

Diopter was my first reading too, and my account isn’t even “Dr. Glaucomflecken”.

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.

You’re 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 that’s the thing: What if I don’t? 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 you’re Mark Carney, apparently.

There’s other people in the lines of command

From what I’ve seen these “other people” go through with in just the last week or two, I’m not exactly heartened.

Since we’re eventually deal with people here, there will always be the drive to test out boundaries. If there’s 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, there’s no point announcing it.

…Yes?

That largely depends on what you mean by “approve” and the actual bombing done. Carpet-bombing Israeli cities to kill as many “Jewish infidels” as possible won’t find my “approval”, 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 “approve”, as in I understand why they did it - same as I understand why NATO bombed Yugoslavia.

Reasonable. Now, suppose they don’t 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 country…

Your words:

Correct. The amounts used don’t affect any of that.

Please refrain from moving goal posts.

Likewise. My claim isn’t that they did nothing, but that what they do do doesn’t 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: […] I don’t see the same quality of reasons when Russia, because it can, invades Ukraine, or the US, because it can, decides to abduct Maduro.

And that’s the thing. You see the quality then, but not later. That’s the entire problem. You may see abducting Maduro as gross breach of sovereignty, but from what I’ve seen, quite a lot of EU heads of state are of the “well, dictator, illegitimate” opinion. You may see the Russian invasion as a direct waging of aggressive war, but ever since 2008, Russia more or less structures it’s justifications as mirrors of the NATO one and going “What, you did it too!”. Hell, right now, the US and Israel are engaged in a war that they can’t even give an excuse for, and Carney, who just came back from Davos and the “remove the sign from the window” speech put the sign right back were it was. Your entire argument works perfectly as long as there’s 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 wouldn’t 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. There’s 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 didn’t like a ruling, and B) a bunch didn’t even join because they didn’t 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, I’d 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 isn’t 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 “but” there doesn’t do anything. The rest of the statement is unrelated to the first sentence, and the first sentence is what I’m pointing at. You say you care about the underlying mechanisms, but I don’t see you making the connection here.

But what has that given us? In a world full of nukes, these countries wouldn’t fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that can’t be won.

Ouf, this is a very dangerous assumption, particularly in a world where one of those powers has an unofficial-official policy of “we’re taking you all with us” and two are run by geriatrics who clearly haven’t made peace with their own mortality, one of which’s warchief just said they’re 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: “the veto itself is still the same”. The fundamental problem that makes vetos broken, from a systems standpoint, is the law-breaking. It alone is not exactly fantastic, but is limited. It’s 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 countries’ 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.

“Jain”. It’s an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not.

It depends on the circumstances.

The problem with this is the same as with the “mostly” 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 “Now I’m not saying he should’ve done it, but I understand”. There’s a big gap between “I understand” and “he should’ve done it”.

Well. I don’t. Because I’m certain its not their determination holding them back but their possibilities. An Iran with the political and military possibilities of the US wouldn’t resort to funding terrorist groups in the counties neighbouring their enemy. Similarly, if Trump was “only” the president of a US with the strength and the possibilities of Iran, he couldn’t 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.

…I’m tempted to say “you’re doing it again” 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… let’s say back into the 1967 borders. Would you approve?

This economy is for the birds…