The concept of suitable housing as a right is too uncommon. I wish the US government would put more focus on tangible needs like housing, access to healthy food, and healthcare.
While I feel like I might understand some of the impulse to restrict resources as a way to ensure all members contribute to society, we can see that this isn’t actually the outcome of such restrictions; this tells me that the motivation isn’t about improving society but rather improving the standing of a select few. It is all about power and control. How do we change the social structure at this point?
Care to explain the “another iteration of the problem”? Abolishing slavery ends slavery, abolishing serfdom ends serfdom, abolishing rent ends rent. The Venezuelan case is an example of the latter. You asked how to change the social structure, here’s a tried and true method that has worked from Russia to China to Vietnam to Cuba. You’re free to present your own with better track records.
I see I was looking at the conversation from a wider perspective and likely misunderstood the context added by the image. I don’t disagree with your comment “abolishing ‘x’ ends ‘x’”. However, abolishing any given inequity, one at a time, in one area at a time is not the progress I was speaking of when I asked how to change social structure. Before we can abolish anything, we need people who believe it should be abolished, and we need enough of them to institute change. My question was directed more toward the earlier steps: identifying necessary change and then creating/maintaining a movement which can enact that change.
High ranking UN official obviously speaking in official capacity said that UN rejects use of cluster munition. Imagine being the sort of scumbag who jumps in to defend the use of cluster munitions.
You spend all day posting sketchy ass news from sketchy ass websites that have sensational, nonsense headlines.
This is serious shit, not your play place. The use of cluster munitions and the US’ decision to send them are very important, very real things that are happening.
I don’t have an opinion, and haven’t expressed one here on the use of cluster munitions. My opinion is that you’re a spamming misinformation spreader whose @ pops up in my feed 30 times a day.
I’m not gonna waste my time arguing with a troll, but just going to leave this here so people reading this thread understand what use of cluster munitions means and why most countries and UN advocate banning these munitions.
There are a couple variants of these shells, but given that the M483A1 has already been delivered to Ukraine from Turkey in 2022, I’m going to focus on that one for now. Failure rate of the submunitions is reported at between 2.4% to 4.1% depending on the source, so we can take 3% as a probable number.
Each shell contains 88 submunitions - 64 anti-personnel, 24 shaped charge. To be conservative, let’s count the shaped charge submunitions as I find them less concerning for the civilian aspect in this regard. This would give about two undetonated fragmentation submunitions scattered in an area of 30,000 square meters per shell.
Assuming these shells are being supplied because Ukraine is running out of conventional payloads, which Biden appeared to admit to be the case, it is logical they will not be used only for “specific targets” but used for general artillery.
Given reports of around 5,000 shells fired by Ukraine per day, that gives us up to about 10,000 undetonated fragmentation submunitions left behind per day, with each having a 10 meter kill radius if detonated.
This is the real issue with these munitions. These will present danger to people living in this area long after the conflict is over. Any country that chooses to supply these munitions to Ukraine clearly does not care about the people living there. Anybody who tries to rationalize or downplay the horror of these munitions is a piece of human garbage.
Yes? Wtf do you mean? Does UN secretary general asserting his own opinion through a deputy spokesman does not equate to the UN rejecting shit.
Antonio Guterres is the Secretary General of the Secretariat. He does not speak for the UN on policy. Which, is exactly why your quote from Forbes says “Guterres was against the use of cluster munitions” not “UN Rejects”. The UN hasn’t done shit. They’ve not made a rejection statement or vote. They’ve not “condemned” anything.
One dude, through a deputy spokesman, at a morning briefing, said he didn’t like it.
The UN is not here to enforce anything. It’s a forum for nations to talk to each other, in the hopes that a peaceful resolution can be reached. They condemn things in the hopes that this soft pressure on heads-of-state makes them reconsider their actions.
Unexploded cluster bombs will be discovered in Ukrainian dirt for generations to come — probably by farmers and children. The UN has to condemn it.
UN is irrelevant in some sense I guess but that depends on what you expect them to be. If they could enforce things everyone would leave at once. It’s a place where countries can talk to eachother that might otherwise not. And that is at least worth something.
That still doesn’t answer the question. The second sentence in the Wikipedia article about the partition plan for Palestine is
On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly adopted the Plan as Resolution 181 (II).
so I’m not really sure how you got the idea that this was “just a proposal”.
The article you linked says
The United States says an independent Palestinian state should be established through direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and not through UN action.
which makes it even more unclear. Was Israel created through UN action or did they just steal the land and expel the Palestinians? Did they negotiate directly with the Palestinians in 1948 and arrive on the agreement to share the land according to the borders that existed before 1967?
If you (or anyone) actually have an answer, I’d be happy to hear it.
Just because there’s a UN Resolution passed, doesn’t mean everything that’s proposed magically happens. Governments of all levels accept long-term plans, but then they need to do further actions to follow through on those plans (or in many cases, they don’t do anything and those plans just stay as dreams and what-ifs).
Israel is a state because they’ve declared it and the UN has accepted Israel as a member, it’s really that simple. If you want to know why Israel’s statehood was accepted, that’s very, very complicated and involves millennia of history. I certainly can’t condense it here, maybe others could, but I doubt it. I honestly think Wikipedia’s a pretty good source for the history of Israel, and I’d suggest starting the British Mandate and looking back if you need more context.
It’s immensely unfair, but I’m not sure I’d call that a “double standard.”
I’m no expert, Israel was accepted as a UN when they pledged to implement the partition plan. They’ve never followed through, so you could argue they lied to get in, but once they’re in, it’s difficult to expel/suspend a member.
It looks like it wasn’t until decades later that Palestine sought UN membership. So it kind of makes sense to say the applicant needs to appease the existing members. You could also argue the partition plan was/is unfair, and many wars have been fought over it. I’m just not sure the situations are similar enough to be a “double standard.”
This isn’t about appeasing existing members, it’s just the US blocking everything. Also, asking the colonized to negotiate with their own colonizers is absurd - just wolves and deer negotiating on what’s for dinner.
The double standard is “Israel gets to be a state without negotiating with the people it’s stealing the land from, Palestine doesn’t get to be a state without negotiating with the people who stole their land.” It’s a double standard enforced by the US, but it’s definitely a double standard and the rest of the world can see it.
All the US is doing is destroying its own credibility and the legitimacy of the UN. This shit is going the way of the League of Nations.
Alright, thanks. I took your advice and I think I found my answer in the 1948 Palestine war:
During the war, the British withdrew from Palestine, Zionist forces conquered territory and established the State of Israel, and over 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled. It was the first war of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the broader Arab–Israeli conflict.
Did they negotiate directly with the Palestinians in 1948 and arrive on the agreement to share the land according to the borders that existed before 1967? [ Does solving the issue by war count?
Before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War broke out, the Carmeli Brigade’s 21 Battalion commander had repeatedly damaged the Al-Kabri aqueduct that furnished Acre with water, and when Arab repairs managed to restore water supply, then resorted to pouring flasks of typhoid and dysentery bacteria into the aqueduct, as part of a biological warfare programme. At some time in late April or early May 1948, - Jewish forces had cut the town’s electricity supply responsible for pumping water - a typhoid epidemic broke out. Israeli officials later credited the facility with which they conquered the town in part to the effects of the demoralization induced by the epidemic.[50]
Israel’s Carmeli forces attacked on May 16 and, after an ultimatum was delivered that, unless the inhabitants surrendered, ‘we will destroy you to the last man and utterly,’[51] the town notables signed an instrument of surrender on the night between 17–18 May 1948.
No, war doesn’t count. Someone please tell Putin while we’re at it.
Last year was a lot worse. The police direktor said they were prepared a lot better this year and injuries amongst police and fire department were minor. People buy illegal fireworks in Poland like firework shells and light them on the streets without the mortar tubes. Looks pretty apocalyptic.
You have to remember that the Pope is South American and to the political leaders of South America, especially those on the left, the US is evil and therefore Ukraine has the wrong friends.
In this regard, the bias of Pope Francis against the United States has put him on the wrong side of history.
He could have unified the Orthodox (minus Russia) with the Catholic Church but he has failed a huge failure. He could have increased support for Ukraine and end the war faster. He could have condemned the Russian Orthodox clergy that promote this evil was against the people of Ukraine. He has failed.
You may be interested in the recovered journal of a Soviet infiltrator whose given mission was to establish such pedophile rings among other sabotage missions. These evils were planned and plotted from long ago. Certain places had problems already but this plot certainly made matters much, much worse.
Also, Putin publicly stated their conditions for victory about this time last year: quite literally the total obliteration of Ukrainian identity as a separate culture, and the total integration of the whole of Ukraine into Russia.
You cannot negotiate any form of lasting peace with an enemy that is fighting to deny your very existence. It just doesn’t work that way.
So, while I recognize the last one was US-backed, do we have any evidence at this point to believe this one was also? From what I've read so far this seems like a more straight forward 'you can't fire me this is my country' sort of thing.
So, while I recognize the last one was US-backed, do we have any evidence at this point to believe this one was also?
"Zuniga, for his part, said in televised comments that he expected the government to change and that he also intended to release “political prisoners,” including the former interim president, Jeanine Anez.” www.dw.com/en/…/a-69486191
I mean, the evidence is plain air, but considering 2 incompetent coups in few weeks (DRCongo et Bolivia), you may have to wonder if there’s any rhythm to it, yk…
That is usually the line when society will start moving towards revolution and change.
Get a little hungry? … people start getting angry
Get more hungry? … people start protesting
Face starvation? … people no longer have anything to lose and violent revolution becomes the only option. Why sit around waiting to die when you could just try fighting with a remote possibility of winning when your option is certain death?
This is also the reason why the whole western world does their very best to keep us poor but not so poor that we become hungry. As long as we’re fed, can afford some food or have access to food, we’ll let the powers that be do whatever they like.
telesurenglish.net
Top