• wildbus8979
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s a Security Council resolution, very different than a broader UN operation.

    The resolution itself does not provide for military force to be used for enforcement. Canada was acting against this.

      • wildbus8979
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That in no way changes my original point. Do a role reversal. If China was patrolling in international waters on the edge of Alaska, how do you think Canada or the US would respond exactly?

        • avater@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          your original point is still kind of stupid so no point in changing that. Russia is also invading our airspace but the west still don’t act in such a stupid or dangerous way.

          it’s always those fucking communist countries that have to compensate for something with their behavior…

        • blackn1ght@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          You realise that this shit happens all the time? The Russians send bombers over northern Europe all the time and head towards UK airspace. They get intercepted by fighters, have a wave and turn around again.

        • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You mean if UN flew close to US? It’s disingenuous to equate the UN with US.

    • ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The enforcement was through monitoring. If someone breaks the sanction, then this aircraft would provide the evidence. It’s not military action like you suggest.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would you like to refresh my memory on which countries have permanent veto power on the Security Council?

      Would you also like to remind me which countries on the Security Council voted to impose sanctions on North Korea?

      I’ll wait.

      • wildbus8979
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        25
        ·
        1 year ago

        China did, but as stated the resolution does not grant the use of military enforcement.

        • PugJesus@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Does not grant the use of military force. That doesn’t mean that surveillance planes are banned, ffs.

          You’re really going out of your way to defend what is meaningless and petty nationalist dickwaving for domestic Chinese media.

          • spacecowboy
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Nah they’re just looking for reasons to shit on Canada because you know… Trudeau bad.

            Edit: I have no basis for the above comment. It was reactionary and silly. I shall leave it up in shame.

        • Peaty
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Surveillance flights are not military enforcement.