I agree. I hope the UNSC speaks out about how this resolution is binding.
The USA lies about so much! It's almost safer to assume that it's lying when any of it's political representatives speak. I'm so sick of being lied to.
I hope so, too. I did see some pushback right away by some members of the Council, stating that all resolutions by UNSC are binding, then I encountered even more scrutinizing detail in another analysis of the language of the resolution itself (particularly the use of the word 'demand' to indicate the strength of the Council's directive).
But that's getting into the weeds, which is exactly what Thomas-Greenfield and others representing the U.S. wanted in the aftermath of the vote. They wanted people to squabble over the meaning of the vote, and various WH spokespeople did their level best to cast aspersions and to weaken the resolution in the eyes of the American public. It's just out-and-out distortion.
I've never seen such blatant disinformation campaigns from the WH podium, besides the GWB WH lying the U.S. into a war against Iraq. I wasn't around for the Watergate scandal (though I've invested a bit of time viewing the archives), so I didn't quite get the depth of the "credibility gap" that administration suffered. But boy howdy do I get what that phrase means now.
I'm starting to wonder if it's always been this way (read the Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins if you want to see what I mean) but now with social media we're finding things out that contradict the government line.
Either way, it infuriates me. I hate being lied to, especially when it involves justifying killing people in other countries for resources, power, etc.
I agree. I hope the UNSC speaks out about how this resolution is binding.
The USA lies about so much! It's almost safer to assume that it's lying when any of it's political representatives speak. I'm so sick of being lied to.
I hope so, too. I did see some pushback right away by some members of the Council, stating that all resolutions by UNSC are binding, then I encountered even more scrutinizing detail in another analysis of the language of the resolution itself (particularly the use of the word 'demand' to indicate the strength of the Council's directive).
But that's getting into the weeds, which is exactly what Thomas-Greenfield and others representing the U.S. wanted in the aftermath of the vote. They wanted people to squabble over the meaning of the vote, and various WH spokespeople did their level best to cast aspersions and to weaken the resolution in the eyes of the American public. It's just out-and-out distortion.
I've never seen such blatant disinformation campaigns from the WH podium, besides the GWB WH lying the U.S. into a war against Iraq. I wasn't around for the Watergate scandal (though I've invested a bit of time viewing the archives), so I didn't quite get the depth of the "credibility gap" that administration suffered. But boy howdy do I get what that phrase means now.
I'm starting to wonder if it's always been this way (read the Jakarta Method by Vincent Bevins if you want to see what I mean) but now with social media we're finding things out that contradict the government line.
Either way, it infuriates me. I hate being lied to, especially when it involves justifying killing people in other countries for resources, power, etc.