NATO sure as shit didn’t defend any of their member nations. Interventionalism is when you invade a country claiming that it’s “for their own good”. See: Afganistan or the second Iraq war.
Even if NATO’s intervention severely increased the death toll (including ethnic albanians) and whether or not the ethnic cleansing was actually happening is at least debatable?
Certainly have a better grasp of it than the guy who came to the conclusion that since America is bad then Putin must be good. You just have binary brain worms incapable of understanding anything more complex than a child’s tv show.
You don’t need to buy anything, you just need information literacy and critical thinking. Which is not to say you shouldn’t be critical of US foreign policy - god knows there’s lots to criticize. But comparing the genocide in Yugoslavia to the War in Ukraine is a clear sign of acute mental darkness or you intentionally amplifying authoritarian propaganda.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
Exactly! You can’t just assume that the situation in Ukraine is equivalent to the genocide in former Yugoslavia. As with any claim originating from an authroitarian regime, it must be evaluated critically.
Critical thinking requires thinking or at least some investigation from alternative sources. Was there a genocide in Yugoslavia? Where did this information originate? Who benefited from the breakup of Yugoslavia? Why did a previously settled population become restive? What role did NGO’s play? Did the UN authorize NATO to destroy a well developed state? Did Qaddafi, whom the West had no problem with for years piss a very large actor off? Did the UN authorize its destruciton? Why are some ‘Dictators’ acceptable but others are not? Is it when they outlive their usefulness or decide to trade in another currency that a very large actor doesn’t like? Why is it OK when a very large actor attacks, bombs, intervenes, sanctions, embargoes other states but not when other states do the same to defend their own interests?
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
So… it’s ok if I disengage after that rude comment, right? Spare me your speech on “information literacy” if you’re simply planning on insulting me anyways, please. Just insult me right away. That’d be at least more honest.
Indeed, giving up intellectual responsibility and promoting the propaganda of authroritarian regimes (I couldn’t care less which ones you fancy in particular) should be named and shamed and ridiculed within the confines of the law.
Feel free to engage or disengage in whichver which way you want friend, couldn’t care less, my messages are not directed at you
Care to explain where I did that? How is the pro-NATO narrative not by an authoritarian regime?
(I couldn’t care less which ones you fancy in particular)
Comrade, I’m an anarchist. Not “fancying” any authoritarian regime (be it Russian, Chinese, Islamist, European, GDR-ian, Cuban or American) is kind of my whole idea. All of it.
Care to explain where I did that? How is the pro-NATO narrative not by an authoritarian regime?
Yep, let me refreshen your memory. You equated NATO’s justification (stopping a genocide) to Russia’s justification for a full scale invasion of Ukraine and are acting (or pretending) like we don’t have an abundance of information showing otherwise. This is called a false equivalency.
Next you’re gonna ask me how we know they’re not equivalent. And at some point down the line, you’re gonna ask how we know that 2 + 2 = 4. Ask me how I know.
You can call yourself a potato for all I care. It matters not what you call yourself. I judge you based on your claims and actions, not your self-reported internal monologue or the way you want others to see you.
With that out of the way, why don’t follow your own suggestion and scram.
You equated NATO’s justification (stopping a genocide) to Russia’s justification for a full scale invasion of Ukraine and are acting (or pretending) like we don’t have an abundance of information showing otherwise.
That sentense doesn’t parse. “Otherwise” for what?
I’m not sure I got what you’re saying because of that and if my guess is correct, then I have to apologize for my brash and sometimes undercomplex tone. I sneak in little comments at… a place where I shouldn’t be posting on lemmy, so I’m sometimes a bit agitatory and might seem provocational doing that… that’s just not helpful, so: sorry for my choice of words. I mean it.
As far as I understand it: you’re assuming that I want to be a contrarian who tries to partake in some sort of pissing contest of whch “side” (or country, or treaty organi’ayion) is more evil. But that’s not what I’m trying to achieve.
I don’t want to paint any country as the victim and the other one as an evil aggressor. I find this way of thinking of politics more than counter-productive. I am simply observing politics and trying to make sense of it all. I can do the barebones of how I came to these conclusions. Maybe it’s at least interesting for you.
The first thing you need to understand is that the interests of a nation do not coincide with, the interests of their population. At least not necessarily, or completely. If the place you live is being invaded by Russia is a horrible thing to live through, I’m sure of it. But that doesn’t mean that I should accept being killed for “my” nation.
I grief for every killed Ukrainian (as much as I can, considered the emotional/geographical distance between us). That’s why I don’t think that their “sacrifice” for the Ukrainian government was “necessary”.
I’m against any war, because it is never in my interest. The proletariat does not have a homeland.
I’m drawing up similarities that all military aggressions have something in common: they are framed as acts of defense against oneself (Israel/Palestine) or some underdog who you’re trying to help. Are you gonna tell me that the bombing of Yugoslavia wasn’t an act of aggression?
I’m not trying to justify any military act. I’m drawing up similarities. You could also convincingly argue that Putin’s invasion of mainland Ukraine had something in common with Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 (“ab heute wird zurückgeschossen”). Am I now downplaying Hitler? Or bigging up Putin? Or am I pointing out similarities without actually making any moral judgement?
Next you’re gonna ask me how we know they’re not equivalent.
No, because comparing them on any metric simply justifies one side over the other. I’m don’t want to be on anyone’s “side”. Every “side” is an authoritarian, capitalist nation state. And I am a member of the proletariat. Why should I condone any of them? (Please don’t claim that I am “both-sidesing” now)
You can call yourself a potato for all I care. It matters not what you call yourself. I judge you based on your claims
I hope you’ve (or anyone) understands my reasoning better now.
and actions
How would you know my actions? O.o
With that out of the way, why don’t follow your own suggestion and scram.
I really hope you stick around. I think political discussion requires a bit of dissenting opinions. As the Channel “what is politics?” put it (paraphrased): If you want to avoid anything that contradicts your already held beliefs: Go read a religious book, but don’t expect to gain any political understanding like that.
Where defense?
Defending people against ethnic cleansing seemed to be the goal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia#Goals
Cool motive, still interventionism. /s
Edit: That was also the official justification of Russia’s invasion. I don’t buy either justifications.
I don’t know what that is. NATO did an intervention on the ethnic cleansing, do you mean that?
NATO sure as shit didn’t defend any of their member nations. Interventionalism is when you invade a country claiming that it’s “for their own good”. See: Afganistan or the second Iraq war.
It did stop the ethnic cleansing though.
I’m not sure if interventionalism is another term for the same thing but interventionism is what I often see used for what you’re describing.
The ethnic cleansing was just a pretence, though. Why is that so obvious when Russia claims a genocide is happening but not with NATO?
I mean the ethnic cleansing was happening and was stopped by NATO. So that’s good imo
Even if NATO’s intervention severely increased the death toll (including ethnic albanians) and whether or not the ethnic cleansing was actually happening is at least debatable?
Yeah Russia was pissed we stopped little brother Serbia from ethnic cleansing the infidels and now makes a mockery of our altruism.
Only an idiot believes they’re sincere though.
The best understander of politics entered the chat. /s
Certainly have a better grasp of it than the guy who came to the conclusion that since America is bad then Putin must be good. You just have binary brain worms incapable of understanding anything more complex than a child’s tv show.
Yeah, that guy must be very dumb… where is he, though? Haven’t encountered him here yet.
Edit: Come to think of it: the opposite is quite widespread on lemmy: “Putin bad, so everyone against Russia: good”
You don’t need to buy anything, you just need information literacy and critical thinking. Which is not to say you shouldn’t be critical of US foreign policy - god knows there’s lots to criticize. But comparing the genocide in Yugoslavia to the War in Ukraine is a clear sign of acute mental darkness or you intentionally amplifying authoritarian propaganda.
You’re a loser either way because of your utter failure to take intellectual responsibility. You might be just one in a sea of millions of ignoramuses but that’s not excuse
Its not critical thinking when you just parrot everything you’ve been told.
Exactly! You can’t just assume that the situation in Ukraine is equivalent to the genocide in former Yugoslavia. As with any claim originating from an authroitarian regime, it must be evaluated critically.
Have a nice day.
Critical thinking requires thinking or at least some investigation from alternative sources. Was there a genocide in Yugoslavia? Where did this information originate? Who benefited from the breakup of Yugoslavia? Why did a previously settled population become restive? What role did NGO’s play? Did the UN authorize NATO to destroy a well developed state? Did Qaddafi, whom the West had no problem with for years piss a very large actor off? Did the UN authorize its destruciton? Why are some ‘Dictators’ acceptable but others are not? Is it when they outlive their usefulness or decide to trade in another currency that a very large actor doesn’t like? Why is it OK when a very large actor attacks, bombs, intervenes, sanctions, embargoes other states but not when other states do the same to defend their own interests?
So… it’s ok if I disengage after that rude comment, right? Spare me your speech on “information literacy” if you’re simply planning on insulting me anyways, please. Just insult me right away. That’d be at least more honest.
Indeed, giving up intellectual responsibility and promoting the propaganda of authroritarian regimes (I couldn’t care less which ones you fancy in particular) should be named and shamed and ridiculed within the confines of the law.
Feel free to engage or disengage in whichver which way you want friend, couldn’t care less, my messages are not directed at you
Care to explain where I did that? How is the pro-NATO narrative not by an authoritarian regime?
Comrade, I’m an anarchist. Not “fancying” any authoritarian regime (be it Russian, Chinese, Islamist, European, GDR-ian, Cuban or American) is kind of my whole idea. All of it.
rude.
Yep, let me refreshen your memory. You equated NATO’s justification (stopping a genocide) to Russia’s justification for a full scale invasion of Ukraine and are acting (or pretending) like we don’t have an abundance of information showing otherwise. This is called a false equivalency.
Next you’re gonna ask me how we know they’re not equivalent. And at some point down the line, you’re gonna ask how we know that 2 + 2 = 4. Ask me how I know.
You can call yourself a potato for all I care. It matters not what you call yourself. I judge you based on your claims and actions, not your self-reported internal monologue or the way you want others to see you.
With that out of the way, why don’t follow your own suggestion and scram.
Have a nice day tho
That sentense doesn’t parse. “Otherwise” for what?
I’m not sure I got what you’re saying because of that and if my guess is correct, then I have to apologize for my brash and sometimes undercomplex tone. I sneak in little comments at… a place where I shouldn’t be posting on lemmy, so I’m sometimes a bit agitatory and might seem provocational doing that… that’s just not helpful, so: sorry for my choice of words. I mean it.
As far as I understand it: you’re assuming that I want to be a contrarian who tries to partake in some sort of pissing contest of whch “side” (or country, or treaty organi’ayion) is more evil. But that’s not what I’m trying to achieve.
I don’t want to paint any country as the victim and the other one as an evil aggressor. I find this way of thinking of politics more than counter-productive. I am simply observing politics and trying to make sense of it all. I can do the barebones of how I came to these conclusions. Maybe it’s at least interesting for you.
The first thing you need to understand is that the interests of a nation do not coincide with, the interests of their population. At least not necessarily, or completely. If the place you live is being invaded by Russia is a horrible thing to live through, I’m sure of it. But that doesn’t mean that I should accept being killed for “my” nation.
I grief for every killed Ukrainian (as much as I can, considered the emotional/geographical distance between us). That’s why I don’t think that their “sacrifice” for the Ukrainian government was “necessary”.
I’m against any war, because it is never in my interest. The proletariat does not have a homeland.
I’m drawing up similarities that all military aggressions have something in common: they are framed as acts of defense against oneself (Israel/Palestine) or some underdog who you’re trying to help. Are you gonna tell me that the bombing of Yugoslavia wasn’t an act of aggression?
I’m not trying to justify any military act. I’m drawing up similarities. You could also convincingly argue that Putin’s invasion of mainland Ukraine had something in common with Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 (“ab heute wird zurückgeschossen”). Am I now downplaying Hitler? Or bigging up Putin? Or am I pointing out similarities without actually making any moral judgement?
No, because comparing them on any metric simply justifies one side over the other. I’m don’t want to be on anyone’s “side”. Every “side” is an authoritarian, capitalist nation state. And I am a member of the proletariat. Why should I condone any of them? (Please don’t claim that I am “both-sidesing” now)
I hope you’ve (or anyone) understands my reasoning better now.
How would you know my actions? O.o
I really hope you stick around. I think political discussion requires a bit of dissenting opinions. As the Channel “what is politics?” put it (paraphrased): If you want to avoid anything that contradicts your already held beliefs: Go read a religious book, but don’t expect to gain any political understanding like that.