• AppleTea@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I’m not making the points you seem to think I’m making. Don’t know what to say, honestly.

    Also, here’s the text of Article 51:

    Chapter VII — Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression

    Article 51

    “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

    • PugJesus@piefed.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I’m not making the points you seem to think I’m making.

      This you, buddy?

      but I can also recognize that my country literally set the legal precedent Putin cited to the UN when he started it.

      • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yes? I’m arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the “right of self-defense” as pretext to invade other countries. I don’t see the contradiction you seem to see?

        • PugJesus@piefed.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          Yes? I’m arguing that the United States set a precedent for what wealthy, nuclear-armed states can get away with. We started using the “right of self-defense” as pretext to invade other countries.

          1. The use of ‘self-defense’ as an excuse to invade other countries long predates Article 51.

          2. Article 51 was invoked several times in blatantly unjustified wars by other states before the US invoked it in '64.

          I don’t see the contradiction you seem to see?

          Because you have no understanding of the history you purport to parrot.