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.

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.

Well, Iran having nukes could also be seen as an imminent threat. I just don’t see why one thing would be seen as defensive and the other thing wouldn’t be.

Not my point at all. I did in no way say it was unjustified. I was just saying it was offensive and thus contradicted what the original comment said.

I guess? But where does nato draw the line? Does it bomb a country because it can possibly attack a nato memberstate in 30 years?

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.

Correct me if I’m wrong. But the UN didn’t mandate the intervention, right? Therefore nato was in violation of international law.

But that’s besides the point. I commented under a commenting claiming Nato is purely defensive. Which it clearly isn’t.

Tell that to the people of yugoslavia in 1999