And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it?
Don‘t do this lame ass shit, where I‘m now supposed to argue in favor of human rights violations. That‘s not the point. You‘re shifting the discussion. Bad faith argumentation is for losers.
My points are quite clear:
NATO is not the world police, but in contrary acted against international law by bombing a sovereign state. Accusing other countries for not acting or vetoing only works, if you have a western chauvinist perspective (yes, you do seem to have that), that bombing a country and its people is the rightful and just solution. (Only true, if the West does it, right?) (Also what‘s happening in Iran right now)
NATO did not bomb Yugoslavia to pacifiy it, but to force regime change, balcanization and to expand their sphere of influence, so for geopolitical reasons, not for moral reasons. It strengthened the hegemonic power of the USA in territories of the former Soviet Union. Possible human rights abuses were an excuse used as a propaganda tool, not the reason, just like every time the US is involved (like right now with Iran).
Either way, NATO was the aggressor with no mandate to bomb a sovereign state. They acted against international law and did some human rights violations themselves, while they‘re at it.
Are you able to agree with (at least some of) these points without reacting with strawmen or whataboutisms?
You’re almost there! In fact (…)
I never said that there are no other bad actors, that‘s bad faith argumentation. I‘m also not going to give you a China bad! Russia bad! nod, just so you can further feel validated in your restricted horizon. That’s coping, you cope, hard. The West is the world‘s cancer.
Don‘t do this lame ass shit, where I‘m now supposed to argue in favor of human rights violations.
I don’t ask you to do that. I just ask you to question why you choose to get more upset about a group of countries bringing an end to the ethnic cleansing than the ethnic cleansing itself. When you say that there were also other motives than the stated humanitarian one for NATO to intervene, that directly leads to the aforementioned follow up question: is your opinion that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it? You wrote a lot in your response, but failed to address this question.
It strengthened the hegemonic power of the USA in territories of the former Soviet Union.
Yugoslavia never was a territory of the Soviet Union. It wasn’t even part of the Eastern Bloc after 1948.
I‘m also not going to give you a China bad! Russia bad! nod, just so you can further feel validated in your restricted horizon.
So “I won’t say the truth because I don’t want you to feel right”? This isn’t about me at all. I just encourage you to broaden your view on things, as apparently you have very strong opinions but they’re painted in only black and white. If you feel comfortable with this and don’t want to challenge yourself, that’s also fine with me.
Don‘t do this lame ass shit, where I‘m now supposed to argue in favor of human rights violations. That‘s not the point. You‘re shifting the discussion. Bad faith argumentation is for losers.
My points are quite clear:
Either way, NATO was the aggressor with no mandate to bomb a sovereign state. They acted against international law and did some human rights violations themselves, while they‘re at it.
Are you able to agree with (at least some of) these points without reacting with strawmen or whataboutisms?
I never said that there are no other bad actors, that‘s bad faith argumentation. I‘m also not going to give you a China bad! Russia bad! nod, just so you can further feel validated in your restricted horizon. That’s coping, you cope, hard. The West is the world‘s cancer.
I don’t ask you to do that. I just ask you to question why you choose to get more upset about a group of countries bringing an end to the ethnic cleansing than the ethnic cleansing itself. When you say that there were also other motives than the stated humanitarian one for NATO to intervene, that directly leads to the aforementioned follow up question: is your opinion that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it? You wrote a lot in your response, but failed to address this question.
Yugoslavia never was a territory of the Soviet Union. It wasn’t even part of the Eastern Bloc after 1948.
So “I won’t say the truth because I don’t want you to feel right”? This isn’t about me at all. I just encourage you to broaden your view on things, as apparently you have very strong opinions but they’re painted in only black and white. If you feel comfortable with this and don’t want to challenge yourself, that’s also fine with me.