I’m not sure we are on the same page here. I’m claiming that since the invaded country needs to send its own troops (not UN troops) to protect its land and its people from the invading army, then the soldiers of the invaded country are positioned to make sure the resources of the invaded country reach to the citizens of the invaded country and not get stolen by the invading army.

At no point in this process any country needs to sends forces to another country to protect the nutritional rights of the citizens of that other country.

You’ll need to send your own army anyway to protect your people from the invading enemy, and one of the duties of the troops stated there is to make sure your resources are not stolen by the enemy.

Shy of magic, that’s not a policy you can implement. Either people in a region have access to food or they don’t. You can’t just put a stamp on a loaf of bread that makes it inedible to anyone carrying a gun.

1. Again - I believe Albert was specifically talking about denying food from the soldiers of the invading enemy army.

   Unless the enemy is in there long enough to start farming your land, their only have two options to get food - they can bring it from their home country (or some other country they control, or one that’s friendly enough to sell it to them) or they can try to get it from your country. You can sabotage their first option by attacking their supply lines, and as for the second option - hopefully your own citizens won’t give them food, either because they don’t want to be invaded or because they are afraid of their own government. Or both. Either way, you’ll have to protect them, of course, because the invading army may try to steal food from them.

   Even if you do everything right you probably won’t be able to hermetically block their food supply - but you may be able to dwindle it enough to starve them. It takes a lot of food to feed an army.

2. Regardless - never underestimate the human ingenuity when it comes to inflicting harm on other human beings.

Finished reading. Paragraph (is that the right name for these things?) number 30 was the only thing even remotely related to the question of an invading army. And even that relation was very, very remote.

Then again - I could have missed it. This is my first time reading a UN resolution, and man… these things are obfuscated. Why are they so obfuscated? Not as obfuscated as patents, but at least there there is a (nefarious) reason for the obfuscation. Why does the UN want to obstruct people from understanding its resolutions?

30. Stresses that all States should make all efforts to ensure that their international policies of a political and economic nature, including international trade agreements, do not have a negative impact on the right to food in other countries;

Only “of a political and economic nature”. Are military actions considered as “political”?

Found one: https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/31493

What’s actually important about these italicized words is the division between the preambulary and operative clauses as a whole. Whereas the preamble uses gerunds such as “Reaffirming” and “Recalling” and similar terms, the operative clauses, which are binding, use terms such as “Decides” “Appeals” and “Approves”.

So… I need to look at the first word of each paragraph, determine whether or not it’s operative, and if it is it’s worth reading the rest of the paragraph?

And if they get hungry and surrender just to eat, because the “enemy” is following international law

If its international law to guarantee everyone gets fed and you are able to defeat an military by starving out the host population (a technique the Israelis are claiming is being used to defeat Hamas) then how are you following international law?

I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace. Surely this doesn’t mean you are not allowed to attack the supply lines of an invading army inside your own borders?

Or… does it?

A quick google yields the resolution: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949?ln=en&v=pdf#files

Starting to read it…

It… starts with six pages of “recalling this”, “acknowledging that”? Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful? Maybe I should find a guide for reading them first…

Says 179 when I try (not sure why it’s different) but only 47 of them are the actual article - the rest are references.

What’s so special with four and a half billion years (or 13.8 billion years, if you measure from the big bang instead of the formation of the Solar system and Earth) that makes it so weird for us to “just happen to be” during that time?

Is it “dumbass” (a single word) or is it “dumb/ass” (relation)?

Americans use it as an excuse to avoid converting to metric.

I suspect they are hoping to get their hands on some radioactivity which will turn them into an animal-human hybrid.

Maybe, but they’re cats, not dogs. Looking after them is not as nearly as much time consuming.

That place you were going to will owe to give you the thing you want as a reward for your effort. This is exactly how the world works.

Yes

I prefer Borking News and it’d just be videos of dogs.

Could you guys stop dumping your trash in the forest please? It obstructs my garbage trucks which I send to the forest to dump garbage in.

Zoomers and Alphas have more years of that bleak future to enjoy.

You wouldn’t like the climate solution a true AGI will come up with.

Who verifies the verification though?