• 0 Posts
  • 279 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • 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.



  • 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?




  • 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…