• FlordaMan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    Not my point at all. I did in no way say it was unjustified. I was just saying it was offensive and thus contradicted what the original comment said.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      You know, I don’t actually know how that unfolded. Was it NATO itself, or just all the NATO members? I kind of assumed it was like Iraq.

        • Aqarius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          12 days ago

          What UN mandate? They explicitly didn’t have one, because China and Russia would block it.

          • ohulancutash@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            NATO was enforcing S/RES/1199, which demanded the end of action which affected civilians and end military action.

            • Aqarius@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              S/RES/1199 doesn’t authorize any kind of enforcement. It makes demands of a ceasefire, endorses observers, and threatens to “consider further action”, but doesn’t actually give any mandate for anything.