3 ms·
You can't invoke "international norms" and then in the very next paragraph "but no talking about precedent, that would be whataboutism". Norms are established
by pphysch 2y ago
You can't invoke "international norms" and then in the very next paragraph "but no talking about precedent, that would be whataboutism".
Norms are established through precedents. There are considerable precedents in the 21st century that military invasions DO NOT lead to international sanctions. So this isn't a valid argument, and it's true that that decision was emotional and politically motivated.
- scoofy 2y agoIt’s a perfectly valid argument. All invasions are generally bad, some worse than others. And, yes, some perpetrators of unjust invasions are punished worse than others. The idea that you turn a conversation about fairness for victims into a conversation about fairness for bullies means you don’t actually care about victims.
- pphysch 2y ago> And, yes, some perpetrators of unjust invasions are punished worse than others. In other words, there are no norms or standards for handling these situations. It's purely political.
- scoofy 2y agoIf you want perfect fairness for bullies, not victims, then you don’t actually care about victims at all. This whataboutism is a circular argument where any brazen invasion can be justified by some previous perceived slight. Because someone somewhere got away with something, now anything is permissible.
- pphysch 2y ago[flagged]
- michaelmrose 2y agoPlease list the countries that have been "destroyed" by NATO specifically.
- Jomamadidit 2y agoLibya,Yugoslavia, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria
- michaelmrose 2y agoYou speak mostly of murderous autocrats who attack their own people. That covers Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia. Not sure where you are going with Bahrain. As far as Yemen the official government of Yemen is a democracy and its opponents believe in eternal theocratic autocracy blessed by God.
- an_guy 2y agoWhen NATO attacks someone, it's murderous autocrats... when anyone not NATO attacks it's attacks om __Democrazy__
- michaelmrose 2y agoNo Those very specific countries were run by murderous autocrats attacking their own people to maintain their unjust and injustifiable rule.
- pphysch 2y agoDon't you think there's a chance that that narrative of "murderous autocrats" was manufactured post hoc to rationalize NATO's aggression? Otherwise it's a mighty coincidence that the West only "intervenes" in places that are simultaneously relevant to Western geopolitical-economic interests and just happen to have a "murderous autocrat" begging to be toppled. So convenient that the bloc which dominates the global media landscape is always narratively-justified in its murder campaigns. Nothing fishy there!
- Jomamadidit 2y ago[flagged]
- michaelmrose 2y agoThis is arguing that we have not sanctioned murderous evil actions in the past therefore we must not do so now or ever after. It's a pretty bad argument.