• zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Lucky@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.