• wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
      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@sh.itjust.works
          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            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.

          • 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@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              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.