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.

Because the original remark was “explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, 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. So when you put the four in a sentence, it sounds reasonable to assume everyone can call on a veto whenever, when, in fact, the odd one out is the only one that’s not an outlier.

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?

This is a digression, but: this is not trivia. Accession control is vote control. Also, a legitimacy claim. I can only imagine China’s reaction to Taiwan getting back in.

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.

Because I don’t think you’re being even-handed, so I’m trying to knock you out of the talking points and put you into the other side’s shoes. For example…

…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.

…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?

You wouldn’t agree that there were violations of basic human rights occurring there? Are you really sure?

Oh, there were. I was replying to the whole block with the question.

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.

…Well, the police shouldn’t be able to just access your property, not without a warrant. That some fatcats are warrant-proof is true, though.

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?

IDK, they’re already making excuses, what’s one more? In fact, we already have one: Jesus is coming back, you won’t die, you’ll be raptured! Like, this isn’t just bad governance, these people act like a fucking apocalypse cult.

Just watching the law-breaking idly is also just Dirty Harry.

Well, more like the Uvalde cops, I guess. Or those cops in that town run by scientologists.

Well, you said ““Jain”.[…]

Ah. Yes, exactly, I agree.