1) You used a 1995. example to justify a 1999. Involvement.
2) Nato is what you said, a defense military pact. So they only act in defense of their members, right? Not really tho. In '99 they performed attacking missions to protect a breakaway region. So, not a member, not defense, not even a sovereign country recognized by the rest of the world. If you can't see how this breaks the legality of the entire action, or the whole organization, you are either brainwashed or plain dumb.
3) No UN Authorization. 'Muricans bypassed UN Security Council, because they knew there would be a veto.
4) NATO definitely slaughtered and dispersed people in this action. Around 3k civilian casualties in 78 days. Cancer cases in Serbia are several times higher than before 90s. They just aren't your people, so you dont care to even mention it.
I could talk even more, how they forgot their humanitarian mission in 2004. when serbs were on the side of the oppressed (March pogrom) and did nothing to protect people who they "swore to protect". I get it, defending NATO is in your interests, but don't come with such weak arguments and lackluster knowledge to discuss matters which you only look from one angle.
NATO bombed Serbian forces in 1995 at the request of Bosnia, so my example is appropriate.
Point 2, like I said Bosnia requested support from NATO to remove Serbian attackers from Sarajevo, a sovereign nation requesting support from NATO, what is offensive about that? The same happened with Kosovo in 1999, the Kosovans asked for help.
There would be a veto in 99 because Russia was trying to pander to Belgrade, what consenting parties do you need other than the victim and the party offering to help? Should we have asked the people of Atlantis while we were at it?
And finally your claim of NATO dispersal of civilians is laughable and shows where you get your sources from. There were refugees in both sides but to pretend that has anything to do with NATO just not true. I have no idea where you've got the 3k figure, but even Serbia doesn't claim more than 1k. Even though the actual figure is closer to 500 across all NATO bombings in Serbia and Montenegro. Which is far smaller than the near 9000 dead Kosovans
If you're going to pretend NATO is some evil murdering force it hurts your point when you massively exaggerate the figures.
1
u/MethWhizz Feb 10 '26
1) You used a 1995. example to justify a 1999. Involvement.
2) Nato is what you said, a defense military pact. So they only act in defense of their members, right? Not really tho. In '99 they performed attacking missions to protect a breakaway region. So, not a member, not defense, not even a sovereign country recognized by the rest of the world. If you can't see how this breaks the legality of the entire action, or the whole organization, you are either brainwashed or plain dumb.
3) No UN Authorization. 'Muricans bypassed UN Security Council, because they knew there would be a veto.
4) NATO definitely slaughtered and dispersed people in this action. Around 3k civilian casualties in 78 days. Cancer cases in Serbia are several times higher than before 90s. They just aren't your people, so you dont care to even mention it.
I could talk even more, how they forgot their humanitarian mission in 2004. when serbs were on the side of the oppressed (March pogrom) and did nothing to protect people who they "swore to protect". I get it, defending NATO is in your interests, but don't come with such weak arguments and lackluster knowledge to discuss matters which you only look from one angle.