5 ms·
If its impossible to say, then why intervene? If you can't prove that bombing will have net positive effects then why do it?
by penneallagricia 3y ago
If its impossible to say, then why intervene? If you can't prove that bombing will have net positive effects then why do it?
- _Algernon_ 3y agoIs omniscience a prerequisite to reacting? Nothing would ever get done then.
- penneallagricia 3y agoWe're talking about killing people in a country on the other side of the world. If not omniscience at least clear evidence that there is no other course of action and that this is absolutely required (spoiler, it wasn't). Reacting irrationally is just what animals do.
- misja111 3y agoThe intervention was to implement a UN resolution to force a cease fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1973 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci... Not even Russia or China voted against it at the time so apparently most of the world agreed it was a good idea.
- guilhas 3y agoIt could have been a trap Iraq and Libya invasions, without recovery plan, made the west too morally bankrupt too succeed in Syria A more strategic target to Russia
- thriftwy 3y agoI hope that you understand that bombing Lybia, supplying rebels with weapons and then making them kill Gaddafi is a direct opposite of a cease fire? Or do you believe that a cease fire is when the other side ceases firing so you can get a good shot yourself?
- mcv 3y agoOne reason is because they didn't intervene in Rwanda, and got widely criticised for that. I believe it was decided that genocide demands intervention.
- misja111 3y agoThe bottom line seems to be that the West is criticized by some people no matter what they do, or even what they don't do.
- mcv 3y agoI guess that's why we now get the piecemeal support for Ukraine. No real intervention, but we've got to do something, but not too much, but not too little either.
- f6v 3y agoSending your military personnel to enter a missile flight plan is hardly “something”. Next step is launching said missiles from NATO airspace.
- mcv 3y agoNot sure what you're trying to say here. Surely getting your own military personal involved is not entirely nothing? Also, launching missiles from NATO airspace does not have to be the next step. Two things that sound to me like obvious next steps is sending NATO air defense with NATO personel into Ukraine to provide better cover from Russian missiles. And after that, a no-fly zone. Actual combat support is probably too much to ask.
- FireBeyond 3y ago> what they do, or even what they don't do That's part of it. Because the West usually does these things for purely self-interest, but likes to play the "world police" card to justify things, then gets frustrated when people say "well, if you're the world police, why are you not stopping the genocide in Rwanda?" and the West shrugs, but the answer is generally obvious, "because there's no benefit we can glean from it".
- 31337Logic 3y agoThis is not exactly a fair comment. It's the same reasoning when you attempt to justify /any/ action. You can't do it for a guaranteed outcome (because no such states can be guaranteed) but that doesn't mean you can't try to achieve a desired outcome.