Hello /his/trionics, i'd like to talk about the Responsibility to Protect doctrine for humanitarian intervention. Specifically if it was ever a legitimate norm if it has always been a tool for regime change for both the US and Russia. Does it have a future after Syria/Crimea?
>tfw I could have posted a WHAT IF HITLER DID THIS thread
>tfw i'd have 100 replied by now
"R2P" is like if a bunch of toddlers got involved in geopolitics. What really happened is that the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia was like the "a-ha!" moment for the US who needed a way to keep the NATO gravy train going after the Soviets collapsed.
And R2P absolutely has a future. Just look at how much backlash the average Westerner has for the Libyan intervention - absolutely none. If R2P were invoked for another """Syrian""" chemical attack, nobody would bat an eye because of truth and justice and goodness and blah blah.
International jewery at its finest. Carte blanche to start a war, anywhere, anytime
>le epic ((())) meme
Back to >>>/pol/ with your trash thread