Well… in the case we’re talking about here, the occuring violations of basic human rights were very tangible and real and not ‘propagandised ideology’.
The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.
If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.
But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.
The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence.
If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.
Also not a technicality, lol.
Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.
But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.
The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests.
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?
But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests.
You’re almost there! In fact, it’s actually the veto powers that secured themselves the power to override whatever rules and regulations we thought of giving ourselves internationally after the horrors of WW2. You apparently already have a keen eye on the wrong-doings of the Western parts of these veto powers. Why not extend your view to the Eastern parts, too? Because the feeling of not being obliged to human rights or international law whenever they oppose your own geopolitical interests isn’t at all limited to the “westerners”.
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.
Well… in the case we’re talking about here, the occuring violations of basic human rights were very tangible and real and not ‘propagandised ideology’.
The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.
If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.
But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.
The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence. If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.
Also not a technicality, lol.
Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.
But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.
Edit: lol, if that doesn‘t fit:
Merz: Iran should not be protected by international law
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?
You’re almost there! In fact, it’s actually the veto powers that secured themselves the power to override whatever rules and regulations we thought of giving ourselves internationally after the horrors of WW2. You apparently already have a keen eye on the wrong-doings of the Western parts of these veto powers. Why not extend your view to the Eastern parts, too? Because the feeling of not being obliged to human rights or international law whenever they oppose your own geopolitical interests isn’t at all limited to the “westerners”.
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.