this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
105 points (88.9% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2248 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Truthdig.com

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The article refers to Article 51 of the UN charter, which I quoted. You don't seem to think it matters. To member nations of the UN it matters very much. Why wasn't article 51 included? Because it is a right denied by those that wrote theproposal.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

I get what you’re saying now. And I think it wasn’t included because the resolution deals with humanitarian aid not _self defense _ . The fact that it wasn’t included is just an excuse for the US to vote no. Why didn’t the US introduce a new resolution with that language included? Because it gives them plausible deniability.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

It doesn't work that way. You can't ask for a pause once Article 51 is invoked, and it was. It's not up to the US to write proper declarations for others. I don't see them denying anything, they in essence vetoed it.

[–] cfbundy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your crybully appeals to procedure are deeply unserious. The US have obviously vetoed a humanitarian measure intended to help over a million civilians.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know that's what you want to promote, but that's not what the ambassador said.

[–] cfbundy@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What I'm "promoting" is the analysis provided by top humanitarian organisations:

'"Once again the U.S. cynically used their veto to prevent the U.N. Security Council from acting on Israel and Palestine at a time of unprecedented carnage," said Human Rights Watch'

What you are promoting is pure spin. You cannot possibly be so naive, so you must be deliberately obtuse.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Rather than your spin, I actually read the article. Saw what was quoted, pointing out what it meant.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)