Quittenbrot

Kuba hatte nach der Revolution Eigentum von US-Bürgern und -Unternehmen enteignet, woraufhin Eisenhower das Embargo verabschiedete. Das besteht bis heute und wird, je nach Großwetterlage, mal verschärft und gelockert. Trump hat, wenig verwunderlich, die Zügel wieder angezogen und die Ölblockade dazugepackt.

Das ist der Frieden, den Russland will. Und ohne Waffen keine Gegenwehr der Ukraine und ohne Gegenwehr der Ukraine keine Änderungen dieser Position.

If you're going to take matters in your own hands, you should actually be able to stop what you're using as reason to act. And in the end, of course, also stop it. And not add to it. That is the key point.

NATO managed to stop it in Yugoslavia. The US, while technically capable, didn't achieve anything meaningful in Afghanistan, but left a steaming pile of mess when they withdrew. Or take Venezuela. Kidnapping Maduro didn't help the human rights situation but only produced marketable pictures for the domestic fan base. Hence, it is very hard to see any 'legitimisation' in that, even if Maduro is no-one to shed a tear for. Also, throwing bombs on Iran won't topple that regime or achieve anything for the Iranian population. So what's the 'positive impact' this whole venture should have? If you want your intervention to be seen favourably, it should improve the situation. As happened in Yugoslavia. Hence, I'd say, their success proved them 'right', as in it is one of the few situations where I'd say I approve they took matters in their own hands when UN couldn't respond (which undeniably would have been favourable).

It also worked for both then. In that year exactly, Soviet tanks rolled up to bring revolting workers in East Germany back in line, which just like on the picture, wanted more on these other plates. 50 were killed, 15000 arrested.

Shit, I’m giving you your answer: yes.

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

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.

I don't think the fact that Israel is going to bomb Iran in 2026 is relevant for justifying a humanitarian intervention in 2024. That I would instead see as a justification for Iran attacking Israel shortly before said attack in line of a preemptive attack (fending of an imminent attack). For a humanitarian intervention, the motif is to end the violation of human rights.

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?), I'd ask how the indiscriminate terrorism against Israelis we see in reality from these groups would help achieve the goal that wants to act as a justification for these actions? Sure, Irani-instructed groups that would target the IDF and other "legitimate" targets specifically which are responsible for said violations of human rights, could be considered legitimate. That is, if in that hypothetical world, just like the other example, Iran wouldn't actually have the desire to simply eliminate Israel and wouldn't be one of the key drivers in said conflict. 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.

For a "rhetorical question", you seem to find it awfully hard to answer. Normally, the one asking a rhetorical question has a clear answer to it. But yet again, a lot of text but no answer to the question you raised yourself. Why are you becoming so defensive?

No, I’m not letting you change the subject.

Um, I've been wanting you to answer a question you yourself raised here. So if at all, blame yourself for changing the subject. Why are you wriggling like an eel so hard about a question you posted yourself?

No. Real terrorism existing since decades can't be justified by an attack that started last week.

You asked:

Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?

I'd still like to hear your answer.

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”

Easy: because we at that point left the hypothetical sphere and entered what Iran actually is doing since decades in this conflict. Terrorism. You basically say it yourself by tying the hypothetical example to their real actions, trying to transfer the 'legitimacy' from the first to the latter:

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?

Given that these actions of Iran aren't hypothetical but very real, let's not try to pretend that the questions around it still are hypothetical. But treat them real as well.

So when you try to raise real questions, let's hear your real answer:

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?

Because that's what it boils down to at this point.

Milosevic didn’t attack NATO either.

That wasn't the question, though. You said:

Or, in fact, was Iran really only attacked last week?

..which begs this aforementioned follow-up question.

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.

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 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.

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 don't 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.

..and these fatcats can extend their shield against any warrant to anyone. That is a problem.

IDK, they’re already making excuses, what’s one more?

Talk is cheap. Actually pushing the button that will end the wold isn't.

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 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. 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 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.

And that’s the thing: What if I don’t?

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

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?

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?

…Yes?

Well, you said "“Jain”. It’s an announcement, it could be a bluff, might not." to me raising the point that the veto powers used their vetos for tactical political power play rather than solely serious matters they'd 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 musn't see it as a bluff. Otherwise, the point of the announcement vanishes.

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…

..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.