Quittenbrot

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.

Correct. The amounts used don’t 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 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.

You're mixing up aspiration and possibilities.

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!”.

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 didn't 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 "just mirroring NATO!!1" card as a shabby veil to hide their indigenous blatant imperialism under. But that "argument" has always just been a steaming pile of bs.

And if that sounds fucked to you, I’d point out that the issue right now is they decided even that was too restrictive.

It isn't restrictive as it didn't 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 "better" side by following the rules - more or less. Instead, they released all brakes and don't 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 “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.

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. There's other people in the lines of command from his button to the ship/silo carrying the warhead that the lunacy of only one mustn't 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 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.

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

An announcement must be treated as a veto. Otherwise, there's no point announcing it.

There’s a big gap between “I understand” and “he should’ve done it”.

Well. In a world with the UN working the way it does (or rather doesn't), we'll 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 won't respond to it, helping those in need. As said, I made my choice regarding this specific intervention - knowing that I'd also prefer a system that would actually work internationally and would abolish the need (and possibility) of unilateral action. But until we have that..

Would you approve?

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.

but “Actually, Russia does veto more!” isn’t the interesting part.

Your words:

Because normal countries don’t see the veto as a first line of defense. In fact, normal countries don’t see the veto at all. SC vetos are not, as you present it, normal procedure for normal countries. Hell, even permanent SC members don’t just plop vetos willy-nilly.

I didn’t sneak it in, I wrote “directly” because Israel has attacked Iran directly, and repeatedly.

Please refrain from moving goal posts. Your words:

Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done

..implying 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

Doesn't sound like it, when you're listening to their officials. Not now, not prior to Israel's attack. So what's your basis for this assumption?

You “can accept […] member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands”, and that “exigent circumstances” is defined by the mighty, “As has been the case all along”.

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 "trust me bro" story like for example the US did a couple of years later with Iraq. The UN knew about it but still wasn't 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, we've been through this before, the existing exigent circumstances called for immediate action. 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.

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.

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.

And it’s not a competition, but a comparison.

Time and time again, I see arguments made by what I’m sure are people who consider themselves egalitarian, that basically boil down to “the good guys should just kill all the bad guys”

Fine. But since I never made that claim, please don't vent that frustration on me. I told you what I'm 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. I'm 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 wouldn't fight directly with each other anyway. As, luckily, no-one is keen on fighting a war that can't 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 weren't as privileged didn't 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 can't 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 “I can do what i want” card. If the lawbreaking continues, and there’s no response, countries will eventually decide there are no laws and go rogue, until they’re either brought back in line or the line disappears. It won’t happen instantly, but every time it happens the community gets a little bit closer to falling apart. And if it does, you’re back to might-makes-right, at least until another war reminds everyone why we made the system in the first place.

My point exactly.

“I find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!”

(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.

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 “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”.

It depends on the circumstances. And, let's be real, most don't really care about these but rather only about who's doing it. Back at the tribalistic m.o. For some, it is just fundamentally wrong because it was "NATO"/"the US" and they build their entire (political) world view around the core principle of opposing them. I'm not implying you're one of them, but I guess you'll know what kind of people I mean. On the other hand, you've got those that cheer for the US whatever they do. Who don't care about the countries on the receiving end of US military ambitions, because it is the land of the free bringing democracy. But we're speaking about this case specifically, and I really have to say, given these specific circumstances, I can understand why NATO did what they did.

It’s also why I have more patience with countries that operate by supporting their enemies’ enemies, instead of blowing up embassies and murdering negotiators outright.

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.

Except it wouldn't.