xor

Actually, the Finns already spend 2.4% of their GDP on defense, making them one of the highest defense spenders in Europe (relative to GDP). And they’re famously very well prepared for wartime scenarios.

Turns out sharing a border with Russia makes military spending look very appealing.

Well yeah, there was a deal on nuclear disarmament until Trump tore it up. Not surprising they’re not interested in going through all that again just so he can back out of it for a second time as soon as he wants to look tough.

I wonder how differently the last US election would have played out if Murdoch had died before campaign season

Going to have a big party when he finally goes and joins Reagan in hell

One of the primary reasons trump wants to reduce the US’ focus on Russia and Ukraine is to prioritise their position towards China. That’s not to say Trump might not decide against direct involvement; he’s famously erratic, but the semiconductor production of Taiwan is an critical economic dependency that can’t be replaced in the short term.

No, it’s not a joke. And putting a small amount of thought into it makes clear that the US believes it can effectively defend Taiwan - it wouldn’t keep such volumes of weaponry there if it believed it would trivially fall into China’s hands.

The US’ Center for Strategic and International Studies has wargamed this 24 times for conventional warfare only and 15 times for consideration of the use of nuclear weapons. In both scenarios, they found they would likely be able to successfully preserve Taiwan’s autonomy.

I think you deeply underestimate just how difficult and expensive in manpower and materiel it is to perform a naval invasion, especially against a nation whose military is specialised for pretty much exclusively that purpose.

Naval superiority is naval superiority; if you can’t get your military to the other side of the strait, you can’t invade the island, regardless of distance. The actual question is whether Taiwan would be able to hold off an invasion for long enough for the US navy to reach and control the strait, which is reasonably likely given the US rents a large number of naval bases in the region for just this purpose.

I’m going to just go ahead and ignore your second paragraph, since it’s entirely unrelated to the US’s military capability wrt to Taiwan.

Send the US navy to blockade the strait and finalise the sale of the billions of dollars worth of weapons already waiting on the island for exactly that purpose

No, public companies and cooperatives are completely different things

The investors is not who they’re talking about sharing profits with

This is literally western media talking about it? Wdym about an “omerta”

It’s been the media consensus - at least on the left - that this amounts to genocide for quite a while now.

I did a quick search in the guardian, and they’ve been publishing articles regularly about it for well over a year at this point.

It means they believe the evidence they have is sufficient to show that it is genocide when considered together.

What’s confusing you here?

But the standards for an organisation like Amnesty International saying a state is committing genocide are much higher than a random person on the internet.

To make a claim like that, they have to have specific evidence satisfying the actual definitions in international law, which is what this whole report is about. It’s all well and good for you to go “well it’s obvious to me”, but that doesn’t meet the standards of evidence for a reputable NGO like them to make a statement like that.

They agree with your stance, so I’m not sure I understand why your response to them - explicitly - saying “this is genocide” is to chew them out for it.

I think the Brazilian coup was actually more viable than you might think, he probably could have pulled it off if it wasn’t for a small handful of military members who refused to take part.

Jan 6th was pathetic fr though

I’ve been baffled by this south Korean attempt, too, though. The consensus seems to be that he’d assumed his own party would back him (which presumably would have been enough that the opposition couldn’t form a majority against his declaration). I suppose he must have had strong military support to be so (overly) confident.

Yes indeed, sadly the US is not a signatory

I mean it’s done quite a lot to diplomatically isolate them, right? Putin couldn’t go to South Africa for BRICS, he couldn’t attend the G20 summit this week, and presumably lots of other trips he hasn’t done that he would have otherwise intended to

In Israel’s case, I expect this will be a pain for Netanyahu more than it has been for Putin, since the set of countries that are neither ICC signatories nor actively hostile to Israel is a pretty short list

“Everything is politics” - Thomas Mann

Almost certainly a multiple of 2 minus one

I’m on it lads, booking my flight to Tehran now

Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different

Left your reading comprehension at home?

The argument I was supporting is that you don’t have carte blanche to do whatever you want to intolerant people. The argument I am making is that you have a moral obligation to rely on the law first because that IS the social contract. Not because the law would punish you for it.

Not all police are the same everywhere, but regardless, you can’t just stab people who are being racist.

Just “because nationalism”

Doesn’t mean it’s not profitable, though!

But there’s an important difference between allowing intolerance, and letting the legal system be the arbiter of how it should be disallowed.

Vigilante justice not only deprives the perpetrator of their right to a fair trial and proportionate punishment (yes, being intolerant does not deprive you of your human rights) but also denies the victims their right to see the perpetrator receive justice.

YOU do not get to be the arbiter of justice, just because you think someone is a terrible person. Maybe they’re mentally ill. Maybe they have dementia. Maybe they’re also a victim of abuse.

Document the incident, protect and comfort the victim, contact the police and allow actual justice to take place.

Because in your scenario they are not a threat of imminent violence, and by being a vigilante you prevent society from enforcing consequences in the way the social contract defines - through the justice system.

Now, in a scenario where they are about to commit violence, or the justice system has failed, the balance may be different.