> but we're back to "when the US/NATO does it it's good, when US/NATO adversaries do it it's bad"
You're talking about the hypothetical situation when China or Russia would invade a country to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands.
And you proceed to claim that when they would do it, the West would say "it's bad".
There have been plenty of occasions in, say, the last 75 years where China or Russia have invaded some country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but not one single time was it to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands.
Otoh there have been, and still are, plenty of regimes that are killing and torturing like that, and which receive the full support from China and Russia.
Can you imagine if the US response to CHAZ/CHOP was to drop JDAMs on Seattle?
Now one can counter-argue "not enough people were dying to justify foreign intervention", to which the obvious retort is "who gets to make that determination?"
You're talking about the hypothetical situation when China or Russia would invade a country to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands. And you proceed to claim that when they would do it, the West would say "it's bad".
There have been plenty of occasions in, say, the last 75 years where China or Russia have invaded some country. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but not one single time was it to stop the regime from torturing and killing people by the thousands.
Otoh there have been, and still are, plenty of regimes that are killing and torturing like that, and which receive the full support from China and Russia.