Gsus4

Yea, in hindsight it would have been better to just let him crack down on the population to keep stability in the region, but with the information we had at the time, most African and Arab neighbours agreed that helping the rebels with a no-fly zond would be better than not to, since the civil war was going to start anyway. You don’t care about legality, but that is not the point. The point is that this was not unilateral, like Iraq, and even then military interventions can go terribly wrong.

The best part is when you pay to win and still get thrown to the back of loser queue with most of us. 0/5 wouldn’t buy again.

Lol, I can see upvotes and downvotes and nobody upvoted you, even yourself.

Well, ok then, you can go back to “death to murica”, I’m sure it will help inform your worldview fantastically.

PS: for anyone else: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-Go and https://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/31/opinions/china-wwii-forgotten-ally-rana-mitter/index.html

An oil embargo, lend-lease over the Himalayas and the Pacific war culminating in Japan’s surrender helped China repel Japan a lot more than 20%, but sure “death to murica”.

Meh, if it wasn’t for “America”, they’d speak Japanese all over Korea, parts of China and Indonesia, a base in Okinawa doesn’t sound too bad for an occupation following WW2.

I did not appeal to morality, I stated the fact that the decision to helping the rebels in Lybia took into account every regional player given what we knew at the time. And even in that case it was counterproductive in hindsight.

Following international law is not about morality, it’s about being able to vaguely know what you can count on and possible consequences when you perform a military calculation or a geopolitical move.

If everyone just takes what they can get away with regardless of others’ interests, the future will just be a series of Iraq and Ukraine wars all over the world, particularly in Africa, Europe and Asia.

How much of that carbon is emitted Vs embedded in the steel matrix? 50%?

Maybe it’s true, maybe it isn’t, once you’ve invaded a territory it’s hard to assess, but it’s a fact that they violated Ukraine’s borders to add to their territory twice now.

International law matters here, because invading parts of other countries leads us back to 1914: you sacrifice the peasantry and treasury, but the “empire” is rewarded with territory gains for the history books, this influences military calculus so that wars become more likely if the trend catches on.

You are not free to speak your mind in russia and the government has not earned a reputation for telling the truth at any point since 2014.

That’s all lies again too, man, but this time russia is arresting or killing anyone who dares to tell the truth.