I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said “NATO good”. The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It’s the centrist form of the tankie purity test.
That was a humanitarian intervention to STOP a genocide.
I bet most were happy that the Serbians were reigned in. Even many Serbians.
NATO has intervened in situations where they had a UN mandate.
I know Serbians in the celebrity world of the country. They hate NATO for stepping in. We used to get into arguments about it.
Should’ve bombed Israel while there was still something left of Gaza then
Absolutely. But USA has gotten steadily worse, esp. since Bush.
83 upvotes for this… Man this species is doomed…
Also NATO in 1999 had used military force without the expressed endorsement of the UN Security Council and international legal approval.
They hadn’t in Serbia. Not every illegal attacking war is bad. Reality is messy.
Ah, so it’s not a defensive alliance. Thanks for confirming.
Well… I think a lot of people in Iran are also happy about these strikes.
But that does not change the fact that Nato is clearly not only defensive.
I don’t get the downvotes, you are correct. The OP’s comment that NATO only intervenes defensively is clearly wrong.
Should they intervene here? No, definitely not because this is a stupid, stupid war, and that’s reason enough.
I think it’s my mistake for wording my comment in such a way that it sounds like I think the intervention in Yugoslavia was bad. That was not the point I was making, but I see how it could be interpreted as such.
Your mistake is disagreeing with a comment that said “NATO good”. The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant. It’s the centrist form of the tankie purity test.
They were defending those people, no?