TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The resolutions mention a whole lot of valid reasons, many ironic ones actually, such as interference in international affairs and violation of human rights which the us supports or does, international terrorism which is subjective and expulsion of minorities. But considering that they dont charge america for either committing or supporting similar things is telling. Such as what is happening in Israel and Palestine.
But you acknowledge the resolution does not concern anything that @Estro Felino is claiming, right?
You also acknowledge the military intervention was only mandated based on that resolution, right?
Assuming yes, how then is it remotely correct to say that gaddafi got killed for the reasons claimed by @Estro Felino ?
Do you think this intervention would have occurred if gaddafi did NOT engage in warcrimes, did NOT engage in crimes against humanity?
If yes, on what basis? What would the mandate have been about?
I think i might be confusing crimes against humanity with not respecting human rights but the lines are blurred because warcrimes are included.
Looking at your examples, quite a few of them indeed confuse one with the other.
Some examples are valid.
But, just because in some cases people get away with it or "get protected" by certain veto-powers, that doesn't take away anything from the instances where that isn't the case.
As for Israel, I don't think there is another country which as more resolutions against it then they do....
It just so happens that the US indeed veto's any and all resolutions against Israel almost by default. And it is absolutely a disgrace, I agree.