• TimeNaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Foreign infervention is almost always the worst possible option.

    It only makes sense in the case of active mass genocides (think WWII, Cambodia or Serbia). Toppling an oppresive but stable regime through foreign power always ends in destabilisation and even more suffering to the people.

    • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Foreign infervention is almost always the worst possible option.

      Agreed.

      Anyone who suggests otherwise needs to look at the very long history of foreign attempts at “intervention” in Afghanistan.

      The country was left worse than it was after each of those many failed attempts.

    • JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Serbia? Serbia (SR Yugoslavia) did a lot of nasty shit, but 99’ intervention was not a product of a genocide, let alone a massive one.

      UN ruling in question, BBC article.

      Crimes against humanity and war crimes did take place, it said, but “the exactions committed by Milosevic’s regime cannot be qualified as criminal acts of genocide, since their purpose was not the destruction of the Albanian ethnic group… but its forceful departure from Kosovo”.

      Srebreica was a genocide, but was not perpotrated by actual Serbia, if it makes any difference…

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right.

      Let me know when these problems get solved doing something I don’t suggest.