What are you on about? I’ve always been talking about recently, status quo, today. The only one trying to make this into a historical competition on who vetoed for whom how many times is you. I’ve been trying to make that clear repeatedly. My problem isn’t who vetoed for whom but the possibility to veto at all, as that’s the core problem. If you want to discuss something else, fine. But that’s not the discussion I’m having here.
This is an argument that only makes sense if rely on a veto to cover your ass.
Why? Please elaborate.
Yes I am. They have before, and will again.
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the “West”. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the “West” and dependent on Iran’s support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That’s the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn’t let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
As long as the country isn’t Palestine.
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
But it doesn’t just strip legitimacy from itself, it also strips it from the UN. Which then leads to geopolicy understanders online to call the UN useless, despite all the useful stuff it does.
But that’s a UN problem and not a “persons that call that out” problem. After WW2, there was the understandable desire to create a platform where international topics could be resolved in peace. Good idea! However, the big players didn’t trust each other and also didn’t want to be subjugated to anything else than their own free decisions. That’s also understandable. But a true and fair international platform issues the same rights to all its members. Which the UN doesn’t, so that’s an elemental design flaw it will always stumble upon.
And what you have chosen is “Might makes right”.
No. Because I don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases. I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
Why should people let themselves get killed just because the UN is incapable of fixing its design flaws?
you can’t object to everyone else doing it, whether it’s Russia invading Ukraine, or China invading Taiwan. Or, in fact, any of the Arab states attacking Israel
Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the “lost empire”. Similarly, China doesn’t care at all if the world thinks there’s any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they’ll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a “Chinese” country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle “might makes right”.
No you haven’t. You’ve been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, I’d love to hear it.
Why? Please elaborate.
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. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except for…
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the “West”. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the “West” and dependent on Iran’s support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That’s the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn’t let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
This isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion. It’s not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. You’re doing the thing again.
No. Because I don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases.
Yes you do, you just don’t realize it, because you think right isn’t made by might if it’s made by might you agree with.
Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the “lost empire”. Similarly, China doesn’t care at all if the world thinks there’s any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they’ll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a “Chinese” country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle “might makes right”.
Exactly! Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew… And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly you’re fine with them following the precedent.
Exactly! Because, I’ll repeat it again once more, my problem is not who vetoed when for whom specifically but that it is possible to veto at all for a certain group of countries. Got it?
that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except for…
Yea… no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.
but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
It doesn’t go against current and I explained why I expect different than prior behaviour. And you?
Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done
No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. I’m criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve. When it comes to Israel, these citizens don’t have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
Yes you do, you just don’t realize it, because you think right isn’t made by might if it’s made by might you agree with.
I don’t. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly you’re fine with them following the precedent.
No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle “might makes right”. What you’re trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the “eternal enemy USA”, has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. You’ll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.
Yea… no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.
Ah, you’re finally looking stuff up. Fantastic. I don’t know what picture you think the graph paints, but I’ll take the win.
It doesn’t go against current
Yes it does. There was no veto for sanctions. That’s the current. You’re doing it again.
No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. I’m criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve.
That’s exactly it - I don’t see them trying to achieve it. I could be wrong, but I don’t even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago. You’re doing it again.
When it comes to Israel, these citizens don’t have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
They have the option, yet the action is still hypothetical. You’re doing it again.
I don’t. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
And who makes the right decides what counts as exigent circumstances? That’s right. The mighty.
No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle “might makes right”. What you’re trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the “eternal enemy USA”, has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. You’ll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.
…Wait, you think there’s such a thing as an initial source of injustice? And you think I’m arguing it’s America? Christ on a stick, every fucking thing is a team sport to you people. Though I shouldn’t be surprised, you are after all arguing that breaking the laws is good when the good guys do it. What I’m trying to sell - of course! - here is that either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you believe it’s acceptable to discard law where it hobbles you, then you’re arguing that it’s acceptable for anyone to discard law where it hobbles them. And when told this is what “might makes right” is, your reaction - of course! - is “We don’t do that, also, everyone does that!”. Which is why you’re blaming Iran for things Israel does, because “everyone does that” so they must do it too, and then absolving Israel for things they are doing, because “we don’t do that”, so it’s clearly a fluke.
I could be wrong, but I don’t even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago.
Well, you will know why you sneaked in “directly” here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesn’t matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But I’m sure we actually both know that, so what’s 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? That’s right. The mighty.
As has been the case all along. Your point being?
Wait, you think there’s such a thing as an initial source of injustice?
I absolutely don’t. 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 wasn’t me. In fact, I’ve tried to tell you numerous times that I don’t care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! I’m under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didn’t make at all and hence this is a discussion where we’re talking at cross-purposes.
What are you on about? I’ve always been talking about recently, status quo, today. The only one trying to make this into a historical competition on who vetoed for whom how many times is you. I’ve been trying to make that clear repeatedly. My problem isn’t who vetoed for whom but the possibility to veto at all, as that’s the core problem. If you want to discuss something else, fine. But that’s not the discussion I’m having here.
Why? Please elaborate.
They have at a time when Iran was internationally isolated and Russia was in (superficially) good terms with the “West”. Now, Russia is also isolated, in bad terms with the “West” and dependent on Iran’s support for maintaining their war machine. Russia has too little allies left to be able to afford losing another, if they can help with as little effort as using their veto power. That’s the arguments I can provide for my opinion that they wouldn’t let Iran be punished by the UN. What are yours for your point of view?
True as of today. But in Israel, the people can vote for another direction entirely and have the possibility to rid themselves of unpopular Netanyahu. In Iran, the political cornerstones are set since 1979 and the will of the people for change was just brutally slaughtered. The question remains: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
But that’s a UN problem and not a “persons that call that out” problem. After WW2, there was the understandable desire to create a platform where international topics could be resolved in peace. Good idea! However, the big players didn’t trust each other and also didn’t want to be subjugated to anything else than their own free decisions. That’s also understandable. But a true and fair international platform issues the same rights to all its members. Which the UN doesn’t, so that’s an elemental design flaw it will always stumble upon.
No. Because I don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases. I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly. Why should people let themselves get killed just because the UN is incapable of fixing its design flaws?
Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. Russia invaded Ukraine although everyone knew there was not justification behind it whatsoever, besides the wish of a small, ageing man to be the one in the history books that restored the “lost empire”. Similarly, China doesn’t care at all if the world thinks there’s any justification to them trying to annex Taiwan, when the sole reason they’ll try it is petty-minded revenge and the inability to accept a “Chinese” country outside their oppressive control. All these examples of yours are already operating under the principle “might makes right”.
No you haven’t. You’ve been talking in hypotheticals. If you have a non-imaginary example, I’d love to hear it.
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. Seeing the veto as the first, last, and only option requires a very specific mindset, that is simply not how countries operate. Well, except for…
This isn’t an argument, it’s an opinion. It’s not unreasonable, but it goes against both prior and current behavior of the parties involved.
Once again, you’re criticizing Iran for announcing destruction they haven’t actually done, but credit Israel for hypothetically being capable of deciding not to do the destruction they currently literally are doing. You’re doing the thing again.
Yes you do, you just don’t realize it, because you think right isn’t made by might if it’s made by might you agree with.
Exactly! Let’s not pretend they care at all, even today. US invaded Iraq although everyone knew… And since you agree that laws are stupid and working through the system to get what you want is a waste of time, then clearly you’re fine with them following the precedent.
Exactly! Because, I’ll repeat it again once more, my problem is not who vetoed when for whom specifically but that it is possible to veto at all for a certain group of countries. Got it?
Yea… no. See attached the number of vetoes. Reality paints a different picture.
Source
It doesn’t go against current and I explained why I expect different than prior behaviour. And you?
No. Iran has supported, organised, financed terror against Israel for a very very long time and the destruction stemming from that is very real and palpable. I’m criticising Iran for a goal they openly state and which they actively try to achieve. When it comes to Israel, these citizens don’t have the hypothetical but very real option to vote and change politics accordingly. Opposed to the Mullahs, Netanyahu actually has to fear public opinion and the political opposition, as there, it can actually put him out of office. The Mullahs will just shoot the people in the streets instead. But again, you deviate from the question: is Iran ready to accept the existence of Israel?
I don’t. I told you before: I just can accept that in a situation where the body responsible for exerting international law and the protection of basic human rights is not working, its member states, facing exigent circumstances, themselves take matters into their own hands instead of watching idly.
No. I said that the examples you provided all already operate under the principle “might makes right”. What you’re trying to sell here to me and yourself as a reaction to the - of course! - initial source of injustice that is the “eternal enemy USA”, has in fact always been the case. Have a skim through the linked list of issued vetoes. You’ll be surprised how blatantly calculating and motivated by their own goods these votes were right from the start. And which side especially used the veto in that first period.
Ah, you’re finally looking stuff up. Fantastic. I don’t know what picture you think the graph paints, but I’ll take the win.
Yes it does. There was no veto for sanctions. That’s the current. You’re doing it again.
That’s exactly it - I don’t see them trying to achieve it. I could be wrong, but I don’t even remember them attacking Israel directly at all before a couple of years ago. You’re doing it again.
They have the option, yet the action is still hypothetical. You’re doing it again.
And who
makes the rightdecides what counts as exigent circumstances? That’s right. The mighty.…Wait, you think there’s such a thing as an initial source of injustice? And you think I’m arguing it’s America? Christ on a stick, every fucking thing is a team sport to you people. Though I shouldn’t be surprised, you are after all arguing that breaking the laws is good when the good guys do it. What I’m trying to sell - of course! - here is that either there are laws, or there are no laws. If you believe it’s acceptable to discard law where it hobbles you, then you’re arguing that it’s acceptable for anyone to discard law where it hobbles them. And when told this is what “might makes right” is, your reaction - of course! - is “We don’t do that, also, everyone does that!”. Which is why you’re blaming Iran for things Israel does, because “everyone does that” so they must do it too, and then absolving Israel for things they are doing, because “we don’t do that”, so it’s clearly a fluke.
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 “directly” here. Iran is the main sponsor of the terrorist groups exerting violence against Israel for decades. It doesn’t matter if they use the hands of others to harm their enemy. But I’m sure we actually both know that, so what’s 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 don’t. 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 wasn’t me. In fact, I’ve tried to tell you numerous times that I don’t care at all about who did what when but only about the underlying mechanisms that allow this behaviour - by both teams! I’m under the strong impression that you are getting really emotional about points you read into my words but which I didn’t make at all and hence this is a discussion where we’re talking at cross-purposes.