Now your moving the goal post. I’m not arguing about if the UN is effective or not. Just arguing that the UN didn’t sanction the bombing, unlike you implied.
If there’s ethnic cleansing going on, do you want to wait for the UN to act (in vain, because veto powers) or do you act based on the principles the UN should act on if it actually worked?
Because let’s not pretend that the UN actually decided on the substance of that matter and decided against it based on what was happening. It never decided solely due to political reasons and its architecture.
If you want to hold that against NATO, fine. Sometimes, being technically correct isn’t the thing to aspire.
The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.
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.
…does ethnic cleansing under Netanyahu’s power-hungry expansionism, you’d be as justified removing Netanyahu from power. Problem is: that path necessarily leads towards conflict with the US and so far, I can’t see any US near-peers capable and willing to do so. The point still stands, though.
But if you both accept that a veto blocks an intervention if backed by firepower, but doesn’t if not, then the vote itself is just window dressing and all you’re left is might makes right.
then the vote itself is just window dressing and all you’re left is might makes right.
And are you trying to tell me the UN is anything else than that? As soon as you’re under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US, you can do whatever you want. Their might already makes right whatever you do.
Yes, it very much is anything else. The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one. If the UN was just might-make-right, then there would be no reason to sidestep it the way we see it done. In fact, if anything, the false equivalence of Iran and Israel is actually an excellent example:
Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program, up to and including supervisions, sanctions, arms embargoes and asset freezes. As a result, Iran eventually accepted a nuclear monitoring and the sanctions were lifted, thus the conflict being solved through diplomacy, without resorting to war, and without fighting any kind of explicit protection from Russia. Point for the UN.
On the other hand, looking at the US golden child, they’re practically the only reason the US even uses it’s veto since Apartheit ended (huh. strange, that). But even with Israel being the rogue nation that it is, and being defended by the 900lb gorilla as it is, it’s capacity for damage was largely constrained, not even by veto, but by the simple fact that everybody votes against them, and all of their neighbors hate them. Until, of course, the cold war ended, Fukuyama wrote the worst article of all time, and the anglos decided negotiation is for pussies who don’t have the guns to make shit happen. Now, if Russia or China actually decide to protect Iran, we’re staring down the barrel of WW3, just like we were when Russia invaded Ukraine. You may think this is the UN’s fault for not stopping this, but this is, in fact, how things worked before the UN. The UN is the alternative to precisely what we’re looking at in the news right now.
The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one.
Yea, the discussion part is very strong with the UN. We see a constant stream of arguments, opinions, etc presented there. Everyone can present their country’s view on things. But then what? When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.
And I’d strongly disagree: the veto is not there primarily to prevent world war (which rather is prevented by a huge global stockpile of nukes pointed at eachother), but to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they’d never have to face a decision against their will.
So, while the commoners of countries on the cheap seats keep on exchanging heated discussions based on international law and values they feel more or less obliged to, the elite in the front watches them smiling, knowing they themselves aren’t bound to the same set of rules as them. They literally are above the law.
Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program
Yea. Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation was so unhinged that no veto power saw use in openly protecting it. Or wanted them to get nukes. They still are as unhinged, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens for daring to speak up against oppression, but since they’re now also a key enabler of Russia’s imperialistic war aspirations, at least Russia would not let Iran be punished by the UN again. So there’s that.
Pretty hard to get the UN to mandate anything substantial if there’s almost always a veto power protecting its pawns…
Now your moving the goal post. I’m not arguing about if the UN is effective or not. Just arguing that the UN didn’t sanction the bombing, unlike you implied.
If there’s ethnic cleansing going on, do you want to wait for the UN to act (in vain, because veto powers) or do you act based on the principles the UN should act on if it actually worked?
Because let’s not pretend that the UN actually decided on the substance of that matter and decided against it based on what was happening. It never decided solely due to political reasons and its architecture.
If you want to hold that against NATO, fine. Sometimes, being technically correct isn’t the thing to aspire.
The very premise that NATO, a military alliance consisting of the terrorist state and world hegemon USA and its vassals (the so-called global north, basically), does act on principles regarding human suffering in other countries is not based in material reality, but propagandised ideology.
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.
So, when Israel…
…does ethnic cleansing under Netanyahu’s power-hungry expansionism, you’d be as justified removing Netanyahu from power. Problem is: that path necessarily leads towards conflict with the US and so far, I can’t see any US near-peers capable and willing to do so. The point still stands, though.
But if you both accept that a veto blocks an intervention if backed by firepower, but doesn’t if not, then the vote itself is just window dressing and all you’re left is might makes right.
And are you trying to tell me the UN is anything else than that? As soon as you’re under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US, you can do whatever you want. Their might already makes right whatever you do.
Yes, it very much is anything else. The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one. If the UN was just might-make-right, then there would be no reason to sidestep it the way we see it done. In fact, if anything, the false equivalence of Iran and Israel is actually an excellent example:
Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program, up to and including supervisions, sanctions, arms embargoes and asset freezes. As a result, Iran eventually accepted a nuclear monitoring and the sanctions were lifted, thus the conflict being solved through diplomacy, without resorting to war, and without fighting any kind of explicit protection from Russia. Point for the UN.
On the other hand, looking at the US golden child, they’re practically the only reason the US even uses it’s veto since Apartheit ended (huh. strange, that). But even with Israel being the rogue nation that it is, and being defended by the 900lb gorilla as it is, it’s capacity for damage was largely constrained, not even by veto, but by the simple fact that everybody votes against them, and all of their neighbors hate them. Until, of course, the cold war ended, Fukuyama wrote the worst article of all time, and the anglos decided negotiation is for pussies who don’t have the guns to make shit happen. Now, if Russia or China actually decide to protect Iran, we’re staring down the barrel of WW3, just like we were when Russia invaded Ukraine. You may think this is the UN’s fault for not stopping this, but this is, in fact, how things worked before the UN. The UN is the alternative to precisely what we’re looking at in the news right now.
Yea, the discussion part is very strong with the UN. We see a constant stream of arguments, opinions, etc presented there. Everyone can present their country’s view on things. But then what? When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.
And I’d strongly disagree: the veto is not there primarily to prevent world war (which rather is prevented by a huge global stockpile of nukes pointed at eachother), but to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they’d never have to face a decision against their will.
So, while the commoners of countries on the cheap seats keep on exchanging heated discussions based on international law and values they feel more or less obliged to, the elite in the front watches them smiling, knowing they themselves aren’t bound to the same set of rules as them. They literally are above the law.
Yea. Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation was so unhinged that no veto power saw use in openly protecting it. Or wanted them to get nukes. They still are as unhinged, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens for daring to speak up against oppression, but since they’re now also a key enabler of Russia’s imperialistic war aspirations, at least Russia would not let Iran be punished by the UN again. So there’s that.