I’m not interested in my answer, I want to know what you think. Do you also think it is yes?
You mean in reality? Clearly no - the 12-day war was a year ago.
Given that in this case, Iran wouldn’t have access to the US carrier group or two from the other hypothetical example, but rather the same financially dependent religiously fanatical fighters as in reality (I presume?)
Well, they do also have the PFJJPFJPPF PFLP, I guess. Splitters…
A huge factor for this personal legitimisation would be if it actually could end the violation of human rights and not just add up to it. And here, the hypothetical Iran with the carrier groups would be far more effective (and hence legitimised) than the hypothetical Iran that enables some militias to indiscriminately fire makeshift rockets across the border, hoping to hit something meaningful.
Now, this is …novel. I was gonna say “ends justify the means”, but this isn’t even that, it’s legitimacy through… competency? Fait accompli? Like, would it be retroactively criminalized if they fuck up? Or is the intervention presumed illegitimate unless it works? Where was that joke from? “Gentlemen, here’s the new kidnapping case, obviously I’ll be taking you off duty, hand in your badges, you can have them back when you find the girl.”
You mean in reality? Clearly no - the 12-day war was a year ago.
Well, they do also have the
PFJJPFJPPFPFLP, I guess. Splitters…Now, this is …novel. I was gonna say “ends justify the means”, but this isn’t even that, it’s legitimacy through… competency? Fait accompli? Like, would it be retroactively criminalized if they fuck up? Or is the intervention presumed illegitimate unless it works? Where was that joke from? “Gentlemen, here’s the new kidnapping case, obviously I’ll be taking you off duty, hand in your badges, you can have them back when you find the girl.”