I’m just waiting for the world leaders, one after another, to cut all ties with both these entities. Will they dare? Will they form a new alliance? Will the world unite against the true tyrants? Stay tuned.
They won’t unite out of morality, but preservation.
Unfortunately, there may still be a long way to go, assuming the leadership doesn’t deny reality up until the nuke launches start.
It depends what end game they all want for us.
The Israel’s “anti-jew/antisemitic” rhetoric only works with the west, so it could take a very long time for leaders with bigger balls to just say “that’s not gonna work anymore”. USA is currently on the path to self isolation.
Our EU leaders are sell-outs and still US bootlickers despite their act.
The ghoul VDL is blaming Iran for defending themselves.Not that easy when you have an insane person with a lot of nukes.
If the idiots can’t see the trend yet, will they ever?
Shithole countries
Oh the two war criminal nations? No shit? The two humanitarian violators? You don’t say?
How to locate evil forces: start asking questions about human rights. Noted.
Yea, and the US “vote” is actually a veto. The US needs to lose its UN veto power because of shit like this.
No, it’s not. This resolution was adopted with a vote of 186-2-0. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf
Right, and the dumb part now is that nobody in the world expects this to mean shit. Even if it would have been unanimous.
You don’t solve world hunger with UN votes. You solve it with technological and economical advancement, by advancing women’s rights and with better access to contraceptives.
Gee I wonder what would it take to solve world hunger. Maybe a comprehensive strategic plan that changes minds of decision makers and pressures them through diplomacy and negotiations. Perhaps we could pool resources at the same time to distribute food to the countries most affected by sitemic historical injustice. Someone should manage that complex of a problem. Maybe a neutral governing body that ensures it’s well managed and countries pay something up front towards this problem. We should call it the league of countries against hunger, or the coalition of groups of people. I don’t know, I’m bad at naming things.
What makes you think the second number is not a no vote?
In 2021 they published reasoning with they will vote no.
I tried to find a definite source, unfortunately there’s no immediate discoverability or reference. Gemini claims “The Standard Format: [Yes] - [No] - [Abstentions]”.
“We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.”
I imagine this is the part they really object to. Real “Fuck you, I’ve got mine.” energy.
Yes, but the US no vote was an automatic veto. They had to remove anything that affected the US and then get all the other UN members to vote on it just to get it to pass. Any P5 nation with veto power can pull the teeth out of a UN resolution.
A “no” vote from a P5 is always a veto. When any of the P5 vote “no” in the Council, a resolution cannot move forward. Council members can, however, resolve their differences and propose new drafts for a vote by the Council. They can also call on a vote from the wider UN membership – the 193 Member States that make up the General Assembly (GA).
No, it’s not. Your confusion probably stems from the fact that the US has veto power over UN Security Council Resolutions. It cannot veto Resolutions passed by the General Assembly. This was a General Assembly Resolution.
Honestly, the UN has been a farce for a long time because of this exact issue. If a handful of countries have veto power then the whole point of the group was moot from the beginning.
Veto power is supposed to represent nuclear power. The logic is that it is way better for a country to veto a resolution than it bombing another country because they got pissy.
I always remind people that the UN’s mission is not to solve all the world’s problems, but to stop countries from tearing each other apart and avoiding all out nuclear mutual annihilation. So far, it has succeeded.
I also hate that it has no teeth against modern issues, like genocides of non nation state peoples. But genocide didn’t even exist as a concept when it was created. The concept was coined by a Jewish legalist who scaped the holocaust.
BTW, same dude hated the guts of Zionist israel and warned that an ethnostate would lead to genocide eventually. He was 100% right.
I’m starting to think that Israel is where most of the evil in the world comes from.
For some reason its always them somehow involved
Israel, Russia and the USA internationally, domestically they have more competition like NK, China, Belarus, some African States and a bit of South America
Nestlé, claiming to be the country of Hydra, claimed a cultural and historic right to all the world’s fresh water, stating that it was promised to them 3000 years ago.
Hail Hydra or something
ExSsSsSsScelsior
The US and Israel at this point are just the axis of evil to the rest of the world.
The USA is a shit hole country with a shit hole leader
Living in the US as somebody who pays attention to the world and cares about people and stuff is absolutely surreal sometimes.
It’s especially so when you’re one of the last people to have had an analog childhood (The Oregon Trail generation represent) so all the adults you knew as a child grew up in the post-ww2 prosperity and genuinely believed all the American exceptionalism stuff.
The only thing it seems we are best at is striking the perfect evil balance where I can’t decide if it feels more Black Mirror or more Hunger Games.
Do you mean Gen X, Millennials, or Xennials when you say last to have analog?
I’m sure my anecdote applies to people from all three, and even to some of the boomers that didn’t ingest as much lead and have kept their head on straight.
When I mentioned The Oregon Trail generation though, that’s usually an Xennial label.
The article would be better if it linked to the reasons for the no votes and critiqued them. Otherwise, it’s just low effort outrage bait. To be clear, I don’t think the no votes were justified. I just don’t like low effort outrage bait.
Edit: Not https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/
The explanation given in this link is complete hogwash.
Bothsidesing idiocy is idiotic.
It’s never “bothsidesing” if you take a position.
Responding to your opponent’s strongest argument is steelmanning, and it’s always good practice if you want to convince people instead of just get clicks.
There will always be nitpicks whenever the resolution is not completely meaningless and devoid of any actionable steps. If the vote was started again just stating that nations are generally against starvation, then I’m sure the US would vote yes.
But maybe not!
If the vote was started again just stating that nations are generally against starvation, then I’m sure the US would vote yes.
lmao
Two vile countries.
But the resolution passed anyway, which is why world hunger has disappeared.
These resolutions are designed to make some countries look bad. Somewhere in the small print there’s a point unacceptable for the US and Israel, so they vote against and newspapers world-wide can report on how US and Israel alone blocked the end of famine.
Ok where is it here exactly I’ll wait
I think i ahould preface the following because it sounds more neutral than I meant it to. TBC I condone neither of these positions, nor do I mean this to be argumentative with your possition, but rather collaborative:
I suspect the objection is to the calling out of / reminder that destruction of water facilities as a war crime, which seems to be something both sides have done/ been threatening in the Iran war, as well as the call out to allow UN/ other humanitarian aid groups unfettered access in warzones. Which seems like it conflicts with Israel’s contentions with UNRWA.
[…] the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding their devastating consequences.
The United States is concerned that the concept of “food sovereignty” could justify protectionism or other restrictive import or export policies […]
We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a “right to food,” which we do not recognize and has no definition in international law.
tl;dr:
- The USA doesn’t think the resolution actually does anything useful, even if it supports the intention
- The USA, the largest exporter of food, is concerned how the resolution might impact food exports
- The USA doesn’t recognize the imposition of legal obligations to act outside of its own territory
What obligation it can’t both do nothing and create obligation which is it
“Not do anything useful” would be more accurate than “do nothing”. But that’s just my tl;dr.
Keep waiting, reading useless and pointless UN resolutions is not a hobby I have. I’m not against the UN, I think it’s a needed organization, but this kind of pointless resolutions only makes it look bad and only feeds anti-UN positions within its biggest sponsor and host: the US.
So good luck with pointless resolutions aimed at the guy paying for the circus…
I am shocked. Shocked!
Well not that shocked.
