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.
Check out the attached link to the source, that should make it clearer what the graph is showing.
I know what it’s showing, but “Actually, Russia does veto more!” isn’t the interesting part.
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.
I didn’t sneak it in, I wrote “directly” 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 that’s the big reason they’re being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasn’t involved in any of them, I don’t think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. It’s 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 they’re facing a foe they can’t destroy, and don’t 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 “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”. Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, “can accept” might to make right. But you also “don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases”, 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 “Crooked Timber Conservative”?
I absolutely don’t. Do you?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but there’s 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 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.
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 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”, 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 they’re doing. This either gets people’s gears going, or devolves into the “No you don’t get it, I’m a Good Person.” 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 aren’t 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 “fucking for virginity” paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isn’t 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 you’ll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that they’re inherently reactive and limited: you can’t 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 can’t 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 isn’t, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isn’t really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as you’re 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 “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.
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 “I find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!”. 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.
It’s why I take a dim view of “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”. 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. And, honestly, it’s why I’m a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm “well, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuilding”. Which I now realize is also “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”.
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.
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.
I know what it’s showing, but “Actually, Russia does veto more!” isn’t the interesting part.
I didn’t sneak it in, I wrote “directly” 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 that’s the big reason they’re being as measured as they have. There were attempts to destroy Israel before, some came pretty damn close, but Iran wasn’t involved in any of them, I don’t think, and they all stopped when Israel got nukes. It’s 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 they’re facing a foe they can’t destroy, and don’t 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 “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”. Therefore, you can accept that the mighty decide when matters are to be taken into their own hands, and therefore, you do, in fact, “can accept” might to make right. But you also “don’t advocate a general free-for-all where every nation can do as it pleases”, 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 “Crooked Timber Conservative”?
Fuck no. There is a web of triggers and precedents, but there’s 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 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”, 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 they’re doing. This either gets people’s gears going, or devolves into the “No you don’t get it, I’m a Good Person.” 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 aren’t 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 “fucking for virginity” paradox, the first time the UN enforced their will some 70 million people died, so this isn’t 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 you’ll forgive a games lesson, the reason vetos are such a popular tool in system design is that they’re inherently reactive and limited: you can’t 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 can’t 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 isn’t, then the implication is the community consensus on what is right isn’t really there, and either is preferable to a conflict between veto powers. The system is stable as long as you’re 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 “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.
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 “I find this decision, that the majority of the council agrees with, so unacceptable that I am considering going to war over this!”. 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.
It’s why I take a dim view of “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”. 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. And, honestly, it’s why I’m a lot less worried when a country goes to war and gets kicked off of swift, instead of getting a lukewarm “well, democracy, his own people, R2P, nationbuilding”. Which I now realize is also “yes, it’s illegal, but it’s the right thing to do”.
Your words:
Please refrain from moving goal posts. Your words:
…implying Iran is only words but no actions. Although they very much act, but through the hands of their affiliated terror groups.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
My point exactly.
(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.
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, 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.
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.