Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that dealing with war criminals requires zero tolerance, specifically targeting Russian President Putin as potentially the current era's worst offender
Merz’s questionable judgement aside, what would we gain from having a nice ranking of war criminals?
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”?
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.
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.
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.
The decisions of when you have exhausted resources and done all you can are often political decisions. They’re not factual.
So the only time limited resources are a valid complain by Merz is Germany being nuked to ashes and “We don’t have infinite resources, so we can’t do anything” being his last words.
There are a lot of other problems, which need to be dealt with. Requiring everything to be thrown at a single problem is foolish. There are also other limits such as nukes around, which make certain actions too risky. Requrining perfection is a hell of a standard and it is bound to lead to disapointment.
At the same time limited resources does not imply doing nothing. For example in the case of Putin, there are weapons and financial aid to Ukraine as well as sanctions against Russia. That are real resources being spend.
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.
Merz’s questionable judgement aside, what would we gain from having a nice ranking of war criminals?
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”?
a Top Trumps war criminals
Yeah, the only ranking in that regard should be “is” and “is not”. Everything else seems like a distinction without a difference.
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.
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.
The decisions of when you have exhausted resources and done all you can are often political decisions. They’re not factual.
So the only time limited resources are a valid complain by Merz is Germany being nuked to ashes and “We don’t have infinite resources, so we can’t do anything” being his last words.
There are a lot of other problems, which need to be dealt with. Requiring everything to be thrown at a single problem is foolish. There are also other limits such as nukes around, which make certain actions too risky. Requrining perfection is a hell of a standard and it is bound to lead to disapointment.
At the same time limited resources does not imply doing nothing. For example in the case of Putin, there are weapons and financial aid to Ukraine as well as sanctions against Russia. That are real resources being spend.
Can you please explain what the actual fuck you’re talking about? What are “resources” here and who is “allocating” them?
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.