• Melchior@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Shouldn’t our spineless politicians concentrate on trying to stop war criminals (all of them) instead of starting academic discussions on who’s the “most serious”?

    It really is not just academic. Resources to stop war criminals are limited. So generally speaking given the choice it is better to prevent a million deaths then a 100.

    • talkingpumpkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Limited resources are a very underhanded, if quite popular, excuse to justify inaction.

      “We don’t have infinite resources, so we can’t do anything” is something that’s been repeated over and over in all contexts (and, lately, especially by the right to justify sweeping the migration problem under the rug by paying off Libya/Turkey/etc instead of actually doing something about it).

      People (and countries) should be only allowed to complain about limited resources after they actually exhausted their resources and done all they could: first you do all you can, and only then you can complain that you couldn’t do more.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Resources to stop war criminals are limited.

      Can you please explain what the actual fuck you’re talking about? What are “resources” here and who is “allocating” them?

      • Melchior@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Context? As in “who” our dear politicians and resources as in military, intelligence, police and economic resources, which can be used to stop war criminals. Basically what somebody like Merz can do to stop what is going on in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Myanmar and so on.