I’m talking about what actually happens, not what is “right” or “allowable”. In a warzone, if your enemy looks like civilians, then civilians start looking like the enemy. That’s the reason why not wearing uniforms became a war crime in the first place. It drives up civilian casualties.
If you step back and try to take emotion out of your consideration, Israel’s actions don’t support that statement. Israel has enough military power to have completely erased Gaza months ago, without sending in a single ground troop, and there would have been absolutely nothing Hamas could do about it.
The situation as it stands right now is basically a textbook example of why the concept of war crimes exists. Taking hostages is a war crime, as is having your fighters not wear a distinct uniform. That second one is critical here, because when that law is broken, it turns civilians into targets.
Not sure who you were listening to, but I seem to remember from the beginning that one of Israel’s stated goals was to remove Hamas from power. The hostages getting released was a condition for any pauses or ceasefires.
Libya had the highest HDI of Africa before NATO’s “peace keeping”
Dude, at least visit Wikipedia before you argue. Lybia was an example of NATO enforcing a no-fly zone, not peacekeeping. And Lybia’s HDI was back to pre-civil war levels three years ago (ie the 2021 data matches the 2013 data).
Are you going to pretend that Muammer Gaddafi was a benevolent and beloved dictator, and that there’s no way Lybians would want him to fuck off all of their own?
it’s hard to separate the blame of NATO and just America
No it fucking isn’t. NATO lists all actions they’ve taken part of on their website. If the action is there, it was NATO, if it isn’t, it was not a NATO action.
The Balkans were just generally on fire in the 90s and NATO enforced a no fly zone and sent peacekeeper forces after the fact.
There’s a few more peacekeeping missions and no-fly zones (Lybia for example), then some training missions, some humanitarian missions (Pakistan for example), a few air campaigns against non-state entities (“terrorists” but realistically that’s often just a matter of perspective), and a bunch of anti-piracy actions.
So it’s “every single war” with heavy emphasis on single.
Russia can end this war tomorrow. Any and all deaths are on them. Hell, if Russia would just stay out of their neighbours business, there would have been no civil war in the first place.
If Russia would quit invading their neighbours, their neighbours wouldn’t have had the motivation to join NATO in the first place (see Sweden and Finland as the most current examples).
The first “W” in “WWII” stands for “World”. It was used to describe the wars because there were multiple countries on both sides that were roughly at parity with each other when it comes to military power. In a NATO vs Russia scenario, there aren’t military peers on both sides. NATO has multiple members that could likely win a war against Russia on their own, and Russia has no one.
It wouldn’t be a “World War”. It would be Russia lashing out one final time before it ceased to exist.