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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
…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.
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.
That wasn’t the question, though. You said:
…which begs this aforementioned follow-up question.
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.
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:
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.
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?
No. Real terrorism existing since decades can’t be justified by an attack that started last week.
You asked:
I’d still like to hear your answer.
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.
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?
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.