originally posted by: Vroomfondel
If we don't act when there is suffering or human rights violations
This is what you need to get a grasp of, there are no interventions on humanitarian grounds, NOT A SINGLE ONE
. The closest last realistic
example was Somalia in 1993. But the UN screwed it all up, we had a nasty incident, and did what was necessary, we left. They don't want our help,
allow them to suffer.
There was zero humanitarian intent to intervention in Libya, or Syria, or Iraq. The first thing you have to do is question the official narrative when
this is the excuse being peddled. Because empires don't make military maneuvers to be nice and help. Military maneuvers are always done in the
interest of resource acquisition or to gain control of taxable land and market penetration historically and today in the modern world.
We can live with a lack of intervention, because the consequences and suffering will be on the hands of the indigenous. When we become involved, the
blood is on our hands. People have to be left to prosper, or destroy themselves. If one cannot accept the reality of what every and ALL military
action is historically and in the modern world, it becomes difficult to have the discussion because one party is completely ignoring the factual and
historical basis of an empires actions when using violent military force.
It would be nice if there could be actual humanitarian interventions. But history shows, especially modern history, these validations for action lend
themselves to significantly worse humanitarian crises in the aftermath. And the only positive gains end up in the form of expanded military logistic
capability (air bases/naval ports), access to resources and preferred market access to the companies of the invaders, or the acquisition of land where
taxes can be gained from every person, product, and service which will conduct itself within that land.
Or to make it quick and simple, the moment you hear "we need to intervene for this humanitarian crisis", its safe to call bull# and start researching
what historically this belligerent has not been yielding to in trade negotiations, financial demands, infrastructure deals or air space treaties and
such. This applies to all parties.
Russia did not become involved because the people were suffering, they became involved because their financial and strategic interests in the country
became threatened. Same for Crimea. We can be honest about that, but we have to be honest as to why we become involved all over the world as well.
Otherwise we are just playing pretend with reality.