As millions of Americans are about to go hungry due to the US government refusing to fund SNAP, just remember that only two countries voted against making food a basic human right. The US and the terrorist colony of Israel

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I think it’s about the enemy soldiers starving into surrender, not the civilian populace.

    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.

    Are UN resolutions like patents, where only a small fraction of the text is actually meaningful?

    :-/

    A lot of it is legalese that matters much more to an actual court system than a random layman picking through the fine print. But yes, broadly speaking a central critique of the UN has been its habit of going out and announcing “Bad Thing Is Bad” and then failing to do much to back that statement up.

    At the same time, when the UN has intervened… well… look at the horror show that was the Korean War. Nevermind the intervention and occupation of Yugoslavia or Somalia. Or the Oil for Food Scandal with regard to Iraq.

    I mean, the fundamental problem with the UN is that its still composed of many of the countries that are actively participating or tangentially benefiting in whatever horrible thing they’re supposed to be preventing. Much like any republican institution, you’re stuck with people who were put there by the corrupt institutions they’re supposed to police. How do you untangle that web? Ask Alexander the Great, maybe.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        denying food from the soldiers of the invading enemy army.

        How do you deliver food to a local population so an invading army can’t get it?

        you may be able to dwindle it enough to starve them

        Who is going to starve first? The folks with guns or the folks without?

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

        Right. I guess the UN teasing the idea of famine relief and pulling back on it is part of that.