but it will take time to respond as it's not like right now there are any clear solutions, — Baden

Fair enough. I note, though, that waiting for clear solutions is sometimes a luxury not available in the moment.

and disregard of a political solution. — Baden

I'm not asking, but I wonder what sort of political solution is available with people committed to your death and destruction, ready, willing, and able to act on it, and have done consistently and repeatedly.

My own view is that the Israelis restyle their state into a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, citizens having a choice of one of three passports, Palestinian, Israeli, or joint Israeli-Palestinian, full rights as citizens for all, and all Palestinians citizens. Obviously a lot of details to work out.

That's frankly stupid and exculpatory.... — Baden

Maybe you and the likes of tim wood.... — Baden

I think it's been explained to you.... — Baden

This, but no answer to a simple question, and as it was asked twice, no reason to ask it a third time.

It appears to me you have permitted yourself to become entirely confused. With 7 Oct. (at least) it ceases to be a question about what is good or right, or bad or evil, but instead a question as to an action to be taken. Not, that is, what is or should be, but what to do. And if you want to fly your grey owl over a battlefield, you can, but you have forgotten in that case when that flight is appropriate/possible. And if you cannot articulate a "do," then it would be more becoming of you to pay more attention and think more (and more clearly) about what is being done. Or if you like, you can assay an answer.

It was and is a simple question. You're PM. What do you do about Hamas.

My own answer is what the Israelis are doing now - and I do not see that they have much choice. Hamas eliminated and Gaza at least somewhat pacified, then there are lots of possibilities and shoulds and oughts. And it might be interesting then to see how much the Arab/Muslim world will contribute to rebuilding Gaza and working towards establishing a real, durable peace. But these future considerations: what do you do now?

And I have no sympathy for Hamas who are homicidal extremists who don't give a damn about the lives of anyone, including their own population. — Baden

The question isn't how you feel abut them. Instead a single simple question: what do you do about them? You're the prime minister of Israel: what do you do about Hamas?

Rather strange view on police actions. At least the Israelis themselves are far more honest than you and call it a war. — ssu

Functionally a war. How else? But are you suggesting that the actions of Hamas on 7 Oct. were not a crime?

I'm not sensitive to this type of moral framing. Israel spent the last month indiscriminately murdering civilians in Gaza, a large portion of which were children. — Tzeentch

"Indiscriminately"? And what exactly would you have them do? Send engraved invitations to Hamas to please present themselves to the nearest Israeli authority for prosecution for crimes? I consider the Israeli actions since 7 Oct. to be a police action and as such not subject to any need for justification or any consideration of any history at all. Hamas is responsible for all of it and they can stop it any time they want. They simply do not want it to stop, and I suspect all of them are past ideologies by now, but instead are in it for money. Further, under the laws of most countries, conspiracy makes all participants equally liable. Thus every member of Hamas is - should be - subject to arrest. Can you say, "Hostages"? Where are they?

(1)There are limits to the 2nd Amendment and I don't think it is unreasonable to be able to have a fact-based discussion about where those limits should be. (2)Being able to defend yourself is a reasonable expectation, — GRWelsh

1) Agree, absolutely.
2) Being able to drive nails yourself is a reasonable expectation, therefore (?) everyone should be able to have a hammer? It is immediately obvious to anyone who has driven nails that owning a hammer and being able to drive nails are two completely different things. Indeed, the beginner with a hammer and nails is a danger to life (not-so-much), limb, and property. Similarly with a car, an ax, with all kinds of things. The lesson being that possession does not at all constitute or establish competence. And it is "not unreasonable" to require competence as a condition for possession.

It’s not the guns. — Captain Homicide

I'll bet that every cause-of-death report for every person ever killed by being shot reads that he or she was killed by gunfire - however that's expressed in such reports. For you to say, "It's not the guns," is disgusting. As it sits, you are at the absolute best - at very best - merely contemptible. It might be educational for you to lose a loved one to a gun and have someone say to you, "it wasn't the gun." Nothing to wish on anyone, but just think about it, if you can.

I buy the idea that for many - waay too many - men, a gun is a surrogate penis, with almost all the rights, benefits, pleasures appurtenant thereto. And no seller willingly will forego that market. I am not a gun owner, nor pro-gun, but a fantasy of mine is to have custom made a large leather holster, maybe in pink, that will carry my gun (which I do not have or own) projecting outward like a giant phallus, and then wear it in a legal open-carry state. Of course it would be obscene, but the challenge would be for folks to make explicit just why it is obscene - the ultimately inescapable conclusion being that guns themselves, except in their proper sphere of action and use, are obscene - and I know that you know what ob-skena means; most folks won't, but they can research it.

My own view is that guns are tools, but that (should) require clearing a whole lot of lower and higher hurdles before being owned, had, possessed, carried, used - as with automobiles. And the mindless claims of any absolute right being just that: mindless.

If you and me get robbed, and I have a gun and you don't, who is in a better position to defend themselves? — Lexa

If having it is the sole criterion and it's robbery, and depending on what you mean by "defend themselves," I'd say the fellow without the gun.

If, however, the fellow is well-trained and practiced, his gun properly functional, and if he can be responsible for whatever his bullet hits, and he is at risk and he has no other choice, then that man gets a gun if he wants one. The trouble with most gun-advocacy that I see and hear is that it is based on fantasy, magical thinking, and in the US a just-plain-stupid "understanding" of the 2d amendment.

Also I don't feel that mass shootings it is a mainly a gun issue, if you have someone who wants to create panic it will switch from guns to something else. So it is a better way to combat mass shootings by understanding the signs and stopping it before it happens rather than taking peoples ability to defend themselves. — Lexa

Mass shootings not mainly a gun issue? And are you saying that because the bad guy will find some way to be bad, that he should have a gun anyway?

As to "peoples ability to defend themselves," please translate into English. I think you're making several mistakes. One is confusing "people" with "person"; the other the assumption that people or a person, having a gun constitutes the ability to defend. But I agree with the rest, that guns should be hard to get, own, and have; also with the above suggestion on restrictions on types of guns. And I'll go further and suggest that every gun have a registered responsible owner, such that if a crime is committed with it, he or she - the owner - will risk legal penalty.

What not everyone understands is that statistics per US state can differ a lot from state to state and can also differ from national statistics. The US state of Vermont has pretty close to zero gun laws - maybe zero - and New Hampshire and Maine very few gun laws, but these are among the safest states in the US, also among the most educated, intelligent (however that is measured), financially healthy, and uncrowded. Massachusetts and Connecticut are more crowded, and have strict gun laws, but more crime because of more people. There are a reported almost 600 mass shootings in the US in 2023 so far, but few in New England.

Gun ownership, then, is manageable. The problem exists with gun-nuts, who feel the US 2d amendment grants an absolute God-given right to have, own, and carry whatever guns anyone wants, wherever and however they want, with no restrictions whatsoever. Which is insane, but that is where we are: the crazies are in charge for the moment.

Civilians should be restricted to revolvers, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles. Any one (or combination) of those is sufficient for home and self-defense. All other firearms should be reserved for police and military. Penalties for possessing any other type of gun should be severe. — RogueAI

Amen, and perhaps you would agree that some training and background checks would go well with this also.

I have just tried reading it. Maybe you should try reading it. It starts. "The General Assembly requested that the Committee recommend a programme of implementation to enable
the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination without external
interference, national independence and sovereignty; and to return to their homes and property
from which they had been displaced."

The name of the committee listed here - note the caveat, "This is an independent publication commissioned by the United Nations General Assembly Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. The analysis and statements of this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or the Committee."

And several problems right here, at least in respect of Gaza. 1) The US in its founding documents mentions "unalienable" rights: to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These themselves are not themselves laws; they're not in the US Constitution, but they are embodied elsewhere in US law in different language. And it is noted that in order to secure these, all the other rights are alienable (at need) in the US. That is, so-called inalienable rights are no simple matter. And I have never seen nor heard of any competent - or any at all - declaration of Palestinian "inalienable" rights.

2) Palestinians in Gaza in free elections in 2006 elected Hamas as their government. And I remember clearly being astonished that they had done so. That is, they did, have been. and are self-determining, presumably with no external interference other than what they choose to be interfered with by.

So what have they chosen to do? Allow me to sum it up this way: to repeatedly shoot themselves in their own feet, and then whine about being hurt and wounded - without for a moment neglecting their stated mission to murder, murder, murder, and destroy, destroy, destroy. Is it any wonder that such a "programme" would be self-injurious and self-defeating? This thread is a 112+ page circle-jerk of people who will not grasp a simple single fact: side A would like to live in peace. Side B, on the other hand, has the single goal of murdering side A, which they do regularly in various ways. From that all else flows, and there is no way out until that goal of murder is given up.

More fwiw.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kEjqeYYMTtw

Come on, Tim. Do you really think that it is logical to use a nuclear weapon? — javi2541997

You miss the whole point. Logic itself does not apply. You're not in some timeless abstract space demonstrating more geometrico that something is or is not the case - or if you are, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Rather you are considering how a foe determined to fight to the death, yours or his or both, can be most quickly brought to submission. And a decision has to be made.

I still maintain my position that Nagasaki and Hiroshima destruction were not really justified at all. It was the first time that a nuclear attack was used on a population. Your arguments are like: 'the ends justify the means'. — javi2541997

What you believe is justified is all yours. If you mean to argue it, then argue it in substantive terms. And "the ends justify the means": sometimes. The only way open to you here is to demonstrate that Truman made the wrong decision; i.e., that he had better options that he inexplicably dismissed. Good luck with that. But until you grapple with that, you're just a hose of ignorance. And you might consider getting back to the topic of the thread.

Why no court condemned Truman for letting the American army destroy two cities? A bit of hypocrisy and cynicism. Don't you think, Tim? — javi2541997

I do think, and no. They wanted to die and they did not have to. And they made it necessary to kill them. By most estimates, the losses in the two cities were a fraction of potential losses resulting from invasion, a conclusion most Japanese accept.

Now there is a fundamental error in thinking (I think) you're making. That is, failing to distinguish between what is and is not demonstrably the case, and what is the best thing to do in a given circumstance. These call for two different kinds of logic, one logic so-called, and the other Rhetoric. With logic you can prove 2+2=4, and compel assent. But logic itself can never determine whether, for example, it is better to build triremes or instead to invest in city walls, or whether to attack at dawn or to wait. If, then, you wish to "prove" that it is terrible to wipe out a city, you can do that. But in terms of what to do, your conclusion is based on wrong thinking and thereby wrong. And your mistake can be a "cure" worse than the disease itself. This is part of what I mean by learning, growing up, and taking the blinders off. And to learn more about Rhetoric, Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics is a good place to start

They attacked first. Yes, but with honour and respect, not targeting civil citizens. They bombed military headquarters and zones. But, they were answered by a bloody nuclear attack. For me, it is clear that there was a big disproportion between the attacks. As well as in this current conflict. — javi2541997

Javi, you seem doubly afflicted with both ignorance and stupidity. But there's hope; clearly you're smart; you need only grow up and stop sucking at the teat of your own misguided sentimentality, learn a few things, and especially and particularly take the blinders from your eyes. First, learn about the fate of Nanking. Second, consider the arguments that even the Japanese respect, that the A-bombs saved lives. Third, learn more about the behavior of Japanese soldiers through WWII. Hmm. it rivals the viciousness of the Spanish Civil War. although in different forms. Bottom line, the US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible, for all good reasons, and the Japanese thought they would prefer to die. Which they did on terms that apparently made their own absurdity clear to them.

Here we go again. No rest afforded to the victims. — Manuel

This the first line of the OP, two years ago. The Palestinians need a break. They also need to give a break. There's an old expression: if you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you have to do is stop digging. But the Palestinians, through the offices of Hamas and every other anti-Israel, anti-Jew entity, won't stop digging. And maybe the anti-Semitism is hard-wired in them - more than I know. But they behave as if addicted to their hatred. And this is a common-enough mental illness, living self-destructively through hate until habituated because it's easier than anything else, and then anything else becoming nearly impossible.

In this sense the Palestinians are like an addict in the family, a brother or a sister, son or daughter. And what is the hard-earned common wisdom for a cure? There is not one until and unless the addict wants to be cured. Period. And the family/community of which that addict is a part can only protect itself - not itself conducive to the best mental health and highest levels of self-actualization.

Addiction is held to be a disease. No doubt at some point it becomes one, although it seems to me that free choice has a part in it - thus at some point being a moral choice; and the disease afflicting family and community. Hatred the addiction/disease of the Middle East - does anyone disagree? - and as with addiction everywhere, it leads to crime.

In short, until the addicts want to be cured, the only option left is a police function. Maybe it's blue-helmet time. And maybe the neighbors persuaded to accept voluntary emigration from Gaza of those who wish to leave. .

This conflict is a acid test for humanity. — FreeEmotion

Perhaps, but I am sure not the way that you suppose. There can be no test of or for humanity until and unless you have some humanity to test for. A great crime against humanity - one of countless - was committed against Israel and Israelis by the organization Hamas, targeting Jews and apparently including everyone and anyone else in the vicinity. I don't know that the Israelis have used the word, but I think of their reaction as a police action against a criminal terrorist organization. And if anyone were genuinely interested in the well-being of Palestinians they would commit to aiding the Israelis in apprehending the criminals, all of them, thus ending on the moment any need for further violence. And it looks like that is what the Israelis are about.

Now here's a question your answer to which, if you give it honest thought, may surprise you. Who cares more about the Palestinians, the Jews or the Arabs?
.

Serendipity? In an apparent dovetailing may I point out this book, The Hermeneutics of Original Argument, Demonstration, Dialectic, Rhetoric with a very good preview feature, here:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Hermeneutics_of_Original_Argument/H9K_rU1gvfUC?q=&gbpv=1#f=false

From the introduction, "...originally, and in Aristotle still, hermeneutics was the process itself of making things clear in talking about them. As such, logos, or speech,... is privileged insofar as for it alone bringing about aletheuein is possible, i.e., making unhidden what was previously hidden and covered up and putting it 'there,' in the open and at our disposal" (1).

Worth a look!

More history, fwiw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEoVzKyD_IM

Disbelievers, however, seem to concern themselves with the more-than-ego in which their mere egos are entangled, or inseparable from, called "nature" – the garden that overgrows the graveyard of all idols. For us (i.e. our delusion): study, not worship; courage, not hope. — 180 Proof

:100: :pray:
Forty-one words and a concise replacement for many, many times 41,000 words themselves a useless belching fury trying desperately to say the same thing.

By siding with Israel's hardliners — Tzeentch

Do you mean the hardliners who selfishly oppose those committed to their utter destruction? That is, the touchy-feely, cuddly-friendly neighbors of Israel, who just recently, as it happens, in case you missed it, murdered - apparently just for the heck of it to show what fine and fun fellows they are - about 1400+ just plain folks, kidnapping another 200-plus. And of course what do you make of the US negotiating on behalf of Palestinians and in favour of a two-state solution? (Of course in the world of Tzeentch that never happened, nor happens.) And that the Egyptians and Jordanians - no fools they - who should be brothers to the Palestinians, want no part of them at all.

No, it seems the only pathetic groveler here is you. And it's unseemly; you should stop it.

Some history, fwiw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-x-cRReI1A

It seems to me that before an action can be denominated as moral or not moral, it must be first established that the actor is a moral agent, or under some moral obligation. Not whether they should be, but whether they are. And it is not at all clear to me that the state - any state - is a moral agent or under any moral obligation. And that of course because the state is not a person, nor is a state's responsibilities and obligations the same as any person's.

The pin in this grenade is Hamas which they themselves deliberately pulled (I was going to say "imo," but the history gainsays that being just an opinion), and before that the PLO. And the explosive has been and continues to be the commitment to the killing of Jews and the annihilation of Israel. And Hamas, et al, have forced the Israelis to become a national SWAT team, which perforce they have become and become good at. After Hamas's Saturday raid, the right attitude is one of apprehension of vicious criminals. It's that simple, a police action.

My private fantasy is that, Hamas being apprehended, the Israelis annex Gaza (my ignorance if they already own it) and offer to every Palestinian their choice of one of three passports. An Israeli passport, a Palestinian passport, or a joint Palestinian-Israeli passport. And full Israeli citizenship with full freedom of motion and all rights. And then they set about rebuilding. And maybe while they're at it, declare a joint Israeli-Palestinian state, details to be worked out.

This listing only goes back to 1993.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/comprehensive-listing-of-terrorism-victims-in-israel#1993
Or this:
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/general/wave-of-terror-october-2015 - 2023
Conclusive? Of what?

Personally, we remember long before 1993 interviews with Arafat and other PLO leaders who acknowledged their attacks (e.g., bombing restaurants and buses) were terrible, ".., but,..". Always the the "but"; their excuse. There are always excuses to be found for those that need them. And it appears that Hamas has - and has had - zero interest in putting out any fires or lowering any heat - unless to bank them for a future reignition.

have any of Israel's neighbors ever offered peace or reversed their desire to annihilate the Israeli state and the people in it? — tim wood

Yes, plenty of times actually, there's lots of examples here, much of it covered in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim. — Manuel

I have not read the book. I have read the Amazon reviews. This seems a good summary of many of them:
"...Various reviewers and historians have criticized his book and shown flaws in it. However my reading of it is that the evidence he presents, while not fully supporting his views (he is very one sided in blaming Israel and ignores both Arab intransigence and also the role of the Superpowers during the cold war) he does at least present enough evidence to show that the myth of Israel the victim and hero is also an exaggeration.....
"Israel has provably committed atrocities over the years (since before 1948 and its foundation) and has been in breach of international law on numerous occasions, but at the same time the Arabs have been no better, and this aspect is missing from the book.
"This book is worth reading, but should be taken with a pinch of salt.... The reality is that at the moment there is little provably objective history of the conflict and anyone who wants to understand it has to read widely and with an open mind. It should be clear to anyone who does that 1) Israel is not a monster and the Arabs harmless victims and 2). Israel is not a harmless victim and the Arabs monsters."


And another review and author's response. From here: https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/153
Avi Shlaim
Posted: Wed, 02/09/2009 - 16:38
"Matthew Hughes's review of my book 'The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World' is judicious and fair-minded. Hughes places this book in its proper context: the ongoing debate between the traditional Israeli historians and the 'new historians' or revisionist Israeli historians of whom I am one. He goes on to give an accurate summary of some of the main arguments of the book before offering his own comments and criticisms. I have no real problem with the review but I would like to take up some of the points made in it....
"Finally, Hughes suggests that Arab military power in the 1973 war, their 'iron wall' if you like, prompted the two sides to negotiate the first peace treaty in 1979 between Israel and Egypt. His conclusion is that perhaps the policy of military toughness was not entirely mistaken. My argument is not that the policy of military toughness was entirely mistaken but that it could not solve the conflict with the Arabs on its own. In the Prologue to the book I explain that Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the original proponent of the strategy of the iron wall, envisaged two stages: first, building the iron wall and, second, once the Arab had given up hope of destroying Israel, negotiating with them. The mistake of some of Israel's leaders, and especially the leaders of the Right, is that they regard Israel's military superiority not as an asset in negotiating a final settlement of the conflict with the Palestinians but as an instrument for perpetuating Israel's mastery over them. The politicians of the Right still believe that the only language the Arabs understand is force. But if the 50 years' history covered in my book shows anything, it is that Israel can only have peace with the Arabs when it is prepared to meet them half-way."
---------

And I think that final "half-way." is an echo of my question to you above, which you did not answer and it seems this book likely doesn't answer. Most of Israel's neighbors seem then and now committed to Israel's destruction. When have any of them offered (real) peace to Israel? I am aware that Egypt and Jordan have treaties in force with Israel which seem to be working, so we can count them. Any others?

You can't keep humiliating and beating people to death, over and over, and expect nothing. — Manuel

Now you can educate: have any of Israel's neighbors ever offered peace or reversed their desire to annihilate the Israeli state and the people in it?

My long-held bias is that there will be peace in the Middle East when all - most - of the people in the Middle East want peace and work towards it, and not before. My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. If I'm a Palestinian, I want to know just WTF Hamas is thinking, because I don't see it doing the Palestinians any good, and indeed doing immense harm.

https://monoskop.org/images/9/93/Kurt_G%C3%B6del_On_Formally_Undecidable_Propositions_of_Principia_Mathematica_and_Related_Systems_1992.pdf
The paper starts on page 173, or page 43 of the PDF.

I find it very tiresome to read online. In my opinion this is the book to look for, The Undecidable, Ed. Martin Davis,
https://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?kn=the%20undecidable%2C%20ed.%20martin%20davis&sts=t&cm_sp=SearchF-_-topnav-_-Results&ds=20

With luck maybe available through your library system. And it could be that by the time you get through p. 5, to sec. 2, you decide you've got enough.

That's easy. Our language allows for sentences to refer to themselves, as Hofstadter demonstrated:
'“Is white” is white.' — Patterner

Not quite. What is your original sentence?

What am I not understanding? How did Godel make numbers self-referential? — Patterner

The answer is just 30-odd pages away, actually in the first five pages, sec. 1, in sketch form, with some effort on your part. And not some three- or four-hundred page book.

Depends on the rights involved. If I'm planting where I have no right to plant, then a legal claim is appropriate. On the other hand, if I am planting where I do have a right to plant, your right (it seems to me) is limited to speech. All jurisdictions I know anything about would arrest you for assault if you attacked. In short, warnings in themselves carry no weight and are zero justification for war.

Does one set of rights sometimes impinge upon or impair another set? Of course they can and do. And that's what courts are for. But any warning itself implies causes and reasons, and those are essentially irrational, if they lead to attack.

By attack, I mean starting a war.

(the manner of enforcement is irrelevant to the question). — EricH

I disagree; that is the question.

If you had such power, can you conceive of a set of laws/rules/philosophical positions that would govern how these issues are decided (some details please)? — EricH

Kant's categorical imperative is a good place to start.

But let's say for the sake of discussion that the historical data overwhelmingly says that what we've been calling country X in reality has always been a part of country Y. — EricH

All this calls for, and depends upon, definitions. I've italicized the words I think require definition. And as well what construction or meanings should be applied once definitions established.

And there is more in this case to the machinery of the categorical imperative than perhaps meets the eye. E.g., if it's ok to attack, then it must be ok to be attacked. And if the merit of the attack depends on the reasons for the attack, then they must be adjudicated. And also, you qualify violence as to be avoided, implying that no reason justifies an attack.

We come down to a good will. Participants must have a good will. And of all the so-called just wars of history, they seem to have been between those of good will and those not. Usually the defender being the party of good will.

Instrumentality is the translation of an abstract into a concrete idea, — Pantagruel

I'd say that reason is ultimately instrumental. — Pantagruel

Hmm. What is a concrete idea? And how does reason (itself) do any work? I.e., translation requires a translator, yes?

Well, without the value of the vision of the goal, the goal itself has no value. So it is the idea that creates the value that realizes the goal. — Pantagruel

Value requires judgment; judgment requires criteria. And this, if you follow it 'round, becomes a circle. What is the telos of a kitten? To become a cat. How does anyone know that? Because in every case (where the kitten lives long enough) it becomes a cat. And what is a cat? What a kitten becomes (if it lives long enough).

But a judgment also requires a judge; i.e., someone who values the judgment. Thus teleology is the reification of an idea, the idea bootstrapped from observation and an attempt, at a time when such an attempt in such terms seemed plausible, to give an account of being.

So if you punch my nose, my nose started the fight? The question wasn't about who annoyed whom, but who started a war. Not an exam, but an effort to raise an argument out of a body of facts rather than nonsense, and as well to see if you're a respecter of words or an abuser of them.

If you think I am such a fool, why do you want to argue with me constantly?

↪tim wood
Now just for the heck of it, are the Russians waging war in Ukraine, yes or no? What do you say?
— tim wood

Yes, they do. — javi2541997

Obsession? Notwithstanding a lot of pages of discussion, we at least have here a clear and unambiguous acknowledgment that the Russians are waging war in Ukraine. So, there's a war. Who started it?

Instead it was an attempt to see if there are any universal principals that can provide a basis for resolving these differences short of violence or threat of violence. — EricH

Sure there are, lots of them. The real question underlying yours is if there are any means by which people or nations can be compelled to act against their wishes short of violence.

And I would like to think that principles alone would work for most people, but history says not for all. And further, that Americans elected Trump in 2016, that about 75M American voters voted for Trump in 2020, and apparently a lot of them would vote for him in 2024, persuades me that a capacity for violence will be necessary for a long time - for so long as people will do such stupid and ignorant things, along with their implicit endorsement of immoral and criminal behavior.

For so long as there are people like Putin with guns who want to take, the rest of us are condemned to having and maintaining guns so that he cannot.

You seemed to be pretty obsessed with them. — javi2541997

My obsessions, such as they are that concern TPF, are people like you who argue from ignorance and stupidity, without apparent regard for truth or reason, but in service of some agenda having nothing to do with truth or reason.

An example is ready to hand: your reply to me just above includes this:

No, mate. My arguments are not childish, but your continuous dislike towards Russia. This discussion, started by EricH, was focused mainly on the Northern Ireland conflict. — javi2541997

And I only had said

You value free speech. You realize, yes? that if you wrote that in Russia you would be detained and questioned and possibly jailed, if not sent to the front. Are you saying, then, that it is a war? — tim wood

Your reply is non-responsive, defensive, incoherent, and factually wrong. Now just for the heck of it, are the Russians waging war in Ukraine, yes or no? What do you say?

It is generally reported that in Russia you can't call it a war, and those that have, or do, find themselves in a lot of trouble.

And your argument appears to be, person x does bad things, therefore it is ok for you to do bad things. Which is a very convenient stance and argument for people deficient in or lacking a moral backbone. And it's usually childish, "Billy did it, why can't I?" Most folks; most nations, grow up. If you're a grown-up, time to start thinking and writing like one.