Yugoslavia was invading Kosovo and commiting ethnic cleansing of Albanians at the time. Agree or disagree with how it was executed, it fits with the idea that he opposes the aggressors in war
The intervention was a key reason the war ended after multiple years of conflict and ethnic cleansing. Are you saying that ending the war caused more ethnic cleansing afterwards than was already happening? That ending war made things less stable?
The intervention also lead to many innocents (like the chinese embasy) being targetted and bombed by US forces.
I do agree that the intervention was likely needed in this case, but that intervention should not have taken the form of carpet bombing as it ended up killing people completely not involved in the conflict; bush even apologised for this and recongised it as a negative.
The tensions have never went away however, the campaigns of mass imprisonment have only put it to sleep for a while and if recent tensions are anything to go by, they are likely to escelate again.
My sources on this are reading and being friends with a few people who grew up through this war, it is a harrowing one and I would say that often times its better to have ‘no opinion’ on matters concerning this unless you have personal stakes in it. Thats not directed at anyone in particular, just more towards americans who use this conflict to score cheap points.
The war itself made things less stable and, arguably, more people died as a byproduct of the war than if the war had never happened.
The fact that things recovered (ish) is a convenient coincidence and not the expectation. If you look at other times the US or NATO intervened, you’ll see why it’s not a given that things will be more stable afterwards.
Well we can play “what if” all we want, but bringing it back to the main point of Sanders, you can argue all you want about if it was the correct course of action but his vote was to stop an invading force.
Sure, but that’s a perfectly valid reason for anti-war protestors to dislike him. There’s a belief out there that diplomacy can resolve most conflicts and that military force should only be used after diplomacy is exhausted.
There’s a reason the UN hadn’t yet approved an intervention.
Yugoslavia was invading Kosovo and commiting ethnic cleansing of Albanians at the time. Agree or disagree with how it was executed, it fits with the idea that he opposes the aggressors in war
Most of the ethnic cleansing happened as a result of the war. The intervention lead to an intensification of ethnic conflict.
The intervention was a key reason the war ended after multiple years of conflict and ethnic cleansing. Are you saying that ending the war caused more ethnic cleansing afterwards than was already happening? That ending war made things less stable?
The intervention also lead to many innocents (like the chinese embasy) being targetted and bombed by US forces.
I do agree that the intervention was likely needed in this case, but that intervention should not have taken the form of carpet bombing as it ended up killing people completely not involved in the conflict; bush even apologised for this and recongised it as a negative.
The tensions have never went away however, the campaigns of mass imprisonment have only put it to sleep for a while and if recent tensions are anything to go by, they are likely to escelate again.
My sources on this are reading and being friends with a few people who grew up through this war, it is a harrowing one and I would say that often times its better to have ‘no opinion’ on matters concerning this unless you have personal stakes in it. Thats not directed at anyone in particular, just more towards americans who use this conflict to score cheap points.
Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade
https://cpim.org/content/yugoslavia-imperialist-war
This source seems completely unbiased and trustworthy.
Read “it is from non-white people who don’t share my ideology, therefore I will disregard it”
Could it be the openly communist site using inflammatory language to bash an ideological opponent? No, it must be racism
As opposed to your trustworthy bourgeois press who don’t use inflammatory language /s
lol
oh do enlighten us why the Communist Party of India is not a credible source
The war itself made things less stable and, arguably, more people died as a byproduct of the war than if the war had never happened.
The fact that things recovered (ish) is a convenient coincidence and not the expectation. If you look at other times the US or NATO intervened, you’ll see why it’s not a given that things will be more stable afterwards.
Well we can play “what if” all we want, but bringing it back to the main point of Sanders, you can argue all you want about if it was the correct course of action but his vote was to stop an invading force.
Sure, but that’s a perfectly valid reason for anti-war protestors to dislike him. There’s a belief out there that diplomacy can resolve most conflicts and that military force should only be used after diplomacy is exhausted.
There’s a reason the UN hadn’t yet approved an intervention.
That’s a fair argument to make