• @TokenBoomerOP
    link
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

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

    • livus
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      @TokenBoomer I agree with this. As well as being a bit off topic, quoting chapter and verse of the UN charter in every resolution would be redundant.

      It’s already in the charter.

      It’s not normally a requisite for resolutions and making it an excuse not to sign seems disingenuous to me.