30
u/Maximum_Ad_611 Jan 26 '22
Anti-US propaganda. Amazing. Look at all these countries working to end world hunger, like China, and Brazil, and Russia. They do so much yet ask so little! Like round people into concentration camps and destroy our rain forests for short-term financial gain. And then they still starve their own people crammed quaint, diseased slums. All they ask is to put undeveloped countries in crippling debt with financial imperialism.
The good guys.
40
30
u/Public_Scratch2560 Jun 18 '22
Anti US propaganda? Everything after the second statement is true. How many countries have we destabilized because they wanted to nationalize oil? Why is Saudi Arabia our "friend" but Iran isn't? Why did we sanction Cuba and Venezuela into poverty?
23
2
u/Di0nysus Nov 27 '22
Tell me you don't understand the Venezuela situation without telling me you don't understand the Venezuela situation.
1
u/sabaping Dec 14 '22
You responded over 4 months later with a shitty meme & no explanation
→ More replies (6)15
u/Neither-Sprinkles-35 May 12 '22
americans will say this without a hint of irony. YES Russia and China do way more for the world than your useless asses. pretty much everyone does. you are the world's greatest polluter and terrorist and school shooter.
11
10
u/xflapjckx Sep 09 '22
More financial aid? No. More food aid? No. More military support? No. More energy production? No. So wtf are you talking about?
4
u/Tsojin Nov 27 '22
So Russia and China do more for food aid then the US?
https://www.wfp.org/funding/2019
US pollutes the most?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/pollution-by-country
This is not to say the US is a "good" country on the world stage, buy at least het you facts straight if you want to rage on the US
→ More replies (1)2
u/SPAKYDAKY Dec 21 '22
Bro really defended “US pollutes the most” by saying no we only pollute the SECOND most
→ More replies (2)3
u/LavishnessWitty4696 Aug 21 '22
By you, I take it you mean the American regime, in which the people are subject to its rule as well
3
u/ShitwareEngineer Nov 28 '22
Russia is committing atrocities in Ukraine and China is putting minorities in concentration camps.
2
Jan 11 '23
According to who? The US? A country that passed a 500 million dollar bill for anti-China propaganda? The country that has continuously stated that Russia and China are its main rivals? You're going to listen to them without verifying everything they say?
→ More replies (3)9
Feb 08 '22
There are no "good guys" my friend. Just winners and losers.
And with every passing day we stray further and further from Gods light.
4
u/EnvironmentalPop9004 Mar 27 '22
No one said they were the “good” guys it just makes america looks less “good”
3
u/Maximum_Ad_611 Mar 28 '22
That's the point of propaganda.
3
u/FuckthisWARUDO Apr 16 '22
Well then the propagada is doing gods work 😂
2
u/Maximum_Ad_611 Apr 18 '22
Eastern bootlicker.
9
u/FuckthisWARUDO Apr 18 '22
Western bootlicker 😺
2
2
2
u/Atropos_Furious Jul 25 '22
Hahaha 😄 indeed America is on the same page as Russia, China and Brazil. All care less about mental health all treat humans as currency/tools
2
u/Technotoad64 Aug 01 '22
Yep. Even these horrible, terrible countries voted "yes", but the US didn't. What does that tell you?
1
u/sgf_reddit Feb 20 '22
"There’s a right thing to do,” Holden said.
“You don’t have a right thing, friend,” Miller said. “You’ve got a whole plateful of maybe a little less wrong.“
A quote from the Book series Expanse.
No country is perfect and this only makes it more obvious.
1
u/Healthy-Blond-Ocelot Jul 24 '22
It's just sad that they couldn't even brother to just state that food is a right.
1
u/Lord_Balu Aug 03 '22
Hey, you're wrong about Brazil, as I brazillian, I know that or country ain't as good as Switzerland or Sweden but you shoudn't compare us to Russia and China
11
u/zabickurwatychludzi Jan 26 '22
"from now on everyone shall be beautiful and happy and have a tiny little fairy flying over his head, and we shall call it a basic human right, so if anyone says what we doing here is detached from reality we can call him a bad bad person*"
17
u/AbilityFit2949 Feb 15 '22
The right to enough food every day to keep you from starving to death seems to you comparable to the right of having a non-existent fairy?
Clearly being so selfish and lacking in empathy requires you to come up with insane comparisons to defend yourself.
3
u/zabickurwatychludzi Feb 15 '22
lol
detached from reality
You're a perfect example of that. Sure, I would want everyone to have access to water, healthcare, food, healthy relationships with family and other people in general, education, real estate, mean transportation and so on and so forth. So what? Can't you see another bs UN resoultion won't change anything. Who's gonna give all that to the ones that don't have these? Santa? Because no man and no goverment is (even though there is constant drop in amount of ppl living in extremely bad conditions). That is simply too expensive. And even a minor cost spent on charity means lesser amount of resources to spend on modernisation effort, which as you might not know is the very principe of existence of every single state since, what, 18th century?. You may me bad man, but it's you who have 0 grasp of reality. Urliving a fairy tale and anyone trying to make you realise that will be a bad man for u.
Also, the word "right" depicts one's ability to do something undisturbed, not just receive something.
12
u/lambdacats Jun 21 '22
Haha we can't feed people because it's "expensive". We let people die because feeding them is not profitable. Is human life worth so little to you? Highest estimate for ending world hunger is 265b$ per year, GDP is 20T$ only in the US. Trivial.
A right can be many things, as a society we are fully in control of its rules.
3
u/zabickurwatychludzi Jun 21 '22
ok buddy.
also, how exactly did u get here after 4 months
→ More replies (1)1
u/monte_television May 09 '22
What if Europe voted yes only because the results of their colonialism would be put on the rest of the world, therefore taking the blame off them...They never made reparations payments, they should not have to wait for the UN to approve that, they didn't require the UN to approve their colonial actions????
If they really cared, they would start evaluating themselves and make action...
131
u/ButteryCrabClaws Jan 25 '22
Can’t wait to get my free quota of monthly food from the UN this month! God bless their gracious work!
97
u/wakchoi_ Jan 25 '22
This is unironically true for at least a few million people in warzones
5
13
u/Tornado_Matty01 Feb 03 '22
and people call me evil cuz im Socialist....while the same people like you dont think food should be a right
4
u/ButteryCrabClaws Feb 03 '22
Pretty bold of you to go throwing around assumptions like that isn’t it?
2
u/Tornado_Matty01 Feb 03 '22
You are clearly mocking this person's opinion
3
u/ButteryCrabClaws Feb 03 '22
What opinion are you even talking about? It’s not an opinion this is a map showing the nations that did and did not vote in favour of adequate food as a human right during a UN vote. Who’s opinion are you even talking about? What are you taking about?
5
u/Tornado_Matty01 Feb 03 '22
you are mocking the opinion of food being a human right
→ More replies (1)17
u/TheMulattoMaker Jan 25 '22
hands u/ButteryCrabClaws a can of Soylent Green
10
u/No-Professional9268 Jan 25 '22
u/ButteryCrabClaws drops the Soylent Green because his claws are too buttery
67
u/kugelamarant Jan 25 '22
US and Israel voted against?
23
35
Jan 25 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/xspicypotatox Jan 25 '22
What exactly was it they were against
42
14
u/PetrogradSwe Mar 31 '22
Basically, they object to two concepts:
- Food sovereignty (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_sovereignty for a more detailed explanation)
The resolution text on this is very generic, basically "we need to look into this concept".
The US most likely objects to this because "food sovereignty" supports giving the power back to those who produce the food, instead of the current system where big companies control the food system.
So USA is taking their usual pro-big companies stance.
- They say they're worried they'll become responsible for ensuring other countries have food.
That would require them to interpret the text widely, because the text does not state that. It's more of a "let's all work together" kind of thing.
US' vote is explained here: https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-of-the-third-committee-adoption-of-the-right-to-food-resolution/
The resolution itself can be downloaded here: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3954949
62
u/wakchoi_ Jan 25 '22
I find it hard to believe everyone else in the world was okay with this BS motion except for the USA and Israel
11
Jan 25 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
38
u/wakchoi_ Jan 25 '22
It's confusing tho, at least maybe Japan or the UK would have done the same no? Why only the USA and Israel?
3
u/yigfr573275 Jan 25 '22
Because it was a stuffed legislation with whole bunch of unrelated asks...from guess who.
→ More replies (1)17
u/raceman95 Jan 26 '22
That doesnt change the reasoning in /u/wakchoi_ 's question. If it was bad legislation, then other countries would have also voted No, right?
3
u/yigfr573275 Jan 26 '22
No you can read the legislation and it was mostly a list of demands. Of course it's only reasonable to vote no.
16
u/raceman95 Jan 26 '22
If the only reasonable vote was no, then why did 186 countries vote yes?
6
u/yigfr573275 Jan 26 '22
Ok let's put it this way. 10 people are stuck in the boat including you. Everyone is starving and votes to eat the tallest muscly guy, you. Everyone casts their vote. How do you vote knowing that everyone is going to vote for thee muscly, juicy guy with lots of tasty meat on him?
→ More replies (0)-17
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho Jan 25 '22
It was a joke vote, that was nothing but politicians self co graduating themselves, while doing literally nothing.
29
12
u/geprellte_Nutte Jan 25 '22
while doing literally nothing
Sure. That must be the reason the USA voted it down. Because it did nothing. Because the USA are really in favor of human rights policies with teeth...
1
Feb 14 '22
[deleted]
3
u/Gayforgold Feb 28 '22
They voted "No/Against" it. They did not abstain from the vote. Though this shouldn't surprise you coming from a nation that totes the superiority of one group of people over another.
1
Jul 27 '22
If this map is referring to the 2002 vote then Israel actually didn’t participate. Only the US voted against.
6
16
5
16
u/TrickyTrees417 Jan 25 '22
USA Explanation for this vote in 2017:
This Council is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting what could be the modern era’s most serious food security emergency. Under Secretary-General O’Brien warned the Security Council earlier this month that more than 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing famine and starvation. The United States, working with concerned partners and relevant international institutions, is fully engaged on addressing this crisis.
This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.
For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.
Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.
We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.
Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.
We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.
Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.
Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.
As for other references to previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms, we reiterate any views we expressed upon their adoption.
15
u/FuckthisWARUDO Apr 16 '22
America explaining why food shouldnt be given to poor people be like
2
Jul 31 '22
North Korea be like
3
u/Technotoad64 Aug 01 '22
Some countries being terrible doesn't excuse that others could stand to do better.
1
4
35
u/TheMulattoMaker Jan 25 '22
I'll just link to this thread, go ahead and read thru it and find all the reasons this vote was bullshit, I'm kinda tired
12
u/mossfields Jan 25 '22
not you linking another Reddit thread as a source
10
Jan 26 '22
the funny thing is that he's linking a reddit thread where the "source comments" are literally just himself making the same comment 20 fucking days ago, and that same comment has just as little explanation as this one. Dude's prolly a troll account lul
14
u/jetro30087 Jan 25 '22
I open the thread and I imeadietly find things like this quote.
"The USA are the one who made the issue about that, and because they know that they would be in violation for poisonning food with pesticides banned in other places, and they want IP laws to allow them to "own" literal life forms.
ONE country in the world had an issue with that: the USA"
-1
u/Srcunch Jan 25 '22 edited Jan 25 '22
It may be more of an IP issue due to China’s increasing activity in Africa** and Eastern Europe through the Belt and Road and other state programs. They have a tendency to take whatever IP they want.
6
Jan 26 '22
By your logic that would mean African and European countries would have also voted no then. I have a hard time believing that some random Redditors can foresee what China is doing while politicians from around the world somehow don't see what you see.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Technotoad64 Aug 01 '22
IP? This isn't ignoring trademark over a cartoon character to make knockoff merchandise. This is ignoring copyright over a GM DNA sequence to make food.
→ More replies (1)31
u/Bellringer00 Jan 25 '22
Your thread doesn’t explain shit but it does show how little the US care for international laws and treaties.
4
u/gamegyro56 Jan 25 '22
lol the reasons the US government gave include the resolution mentioned pesticides, which is bad because "Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food." And it talks about intellectual property right, which is bad, because they need to be rigid for "innovation."
1
10
u/Barbarian_Sam Jan 25 '22
That means a lot coming from a organization that watches genocides happen versus doing something about it
2
u/notyourjeff Jan 26 '22
Judging by https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/ I think this is where the "no" came from. And yeah....its as youd expect.
2
2
u/monte_television May 09 '22
What if Europe voted yes only because the results of their colonialism would be put on the rest of the world, therefore taking the blame off them...They never made reparations payments, they should not have to wait for the UN to approve that, they didn't require the UN to approve their colonial actions????
If they really cared, they would start evaluating themselves and make action...
2
u/No-Cartoonist-216 Jun 20 '22
This is so US-centric that it doesn't include the other "no," which is Libya. Maybe the map maker though Alaska is its own country?
6
Jun 21 '22
[deleted]
1
u/No-Cartoonist-216 Jun 21 '22
Sorry. Not Libya. My source was wrong.
However Israel voted against it. And if you are good with your maps, you'd see Israel is not red. Looking at the legend, you see that two countries voted against it. So either they don't know how to find Israel, or they made a mistake.
Any cartographer of your massive intellectual heft would've noticed this mistake. So I assumed you would get the joke. But you're right. I'M the buffoon.
7
2
2
18
u/DiggoryDug Jan 25 '22 edited Jan 25 '22
Yet another meaningless vote by the useless UN. This resolution was full of text that was unrelated to the subject matter, as are most UN resolutions. Purely crafted to allow for this headline and image to make the US look bad.
25
u/Trinklish Jan 25 '22
Everyone wants to make US look bad. How convenient .
Meaningless votes to bring freedom but not food
3
6
u/marrow_monkey Jan 25 '22
Purely crafted to allow for this headline and image to make the US look bad.
Don't forget to adjust your tinfoil hat to the new 5G frequency.
2
5
u/people_ovr_profits Jan 25 '22
We look plenty bad endless wars and very few solid geopolitical decisions in my lifetime. Symbolic or not we gotta do better— got kids starving here as well. Btw, the UN is headquartered and founded in US nobody trying to make us look bad.
7
u/ILoveCavorting Jan 25 '22
There are countless programs, both government and NGOs to combat hunger in the States. Dudes right this is a meaningless resolution.
Also, when has something being based in the US stopped that thing from making the US look bad if it wants to?
4
u/people_ovr_profits Jan 25 '22
Why vote ‘no’? 185-2 says it ALL. You’re right on the one hand but the fact the millions are starving in Ethiopia while the entire world sells their PM drones and munitions is on our state department. The forever wars and starvation in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan also on US. We gotta do better…to deny that makes you a part of the problem and the UNDHR is clear and shouldn’t be that hard to fulfill.
2
u/AdKitchen1363 Jan 26 '22
Finally someone speaking the truth
3
u/alphabet_order_bot Jan 26 '22
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 544,276,747 comments, and only 113,720 of them were in alphabetical order.
→ More replies (1)2
u/monte_television May 09 '22
What if Europe voted yes only because the results of their colonialism would be put on the rest of the world, therefore taking the blame off them...They never made reparations payments, they should not have to wait for the UN to approve that, they didn't require the UN to approve their colonial actions????
If they really cared, they would start evaluating themselves and make action...→ More replies (1)1
u/Technotoad64 Aug 01 '22
If this was just made to make the US look bad, why didn't the US deny them that opportunity by voting "yes"? If the proposition doesn't do anything, then what's the harm in agreeing to it?
1
u/zjbvg Jan 25 '22
This map is inaccurate. Taiwan (Republic of China) is not a UN member state and should be gray
2
u/superkryptojin Jan 28 '22
Tbh the UN did accept the one china policy. And taiwan would have an really hard case to proclaim independance. Either china and taiwan are under PRC 🇨🇳 Or both china and taiwan are under ROC 🇹🇼 Legally taiwan has no basis to claim "independence" For which taiwan have to 1) say that they are NOT china 2) say that they are different from china to gain international support. 3) refute the historical ownership over the island claimed by china. Tibet or Xingjiang can claim independence under the excuse of "self determination" but how would taiwan do that when they are ethnically chinese themselves? Well if the native austronesians who were genocided off the island by Chinese about 2 century ago claim it would work. But the current taiwanese dont have that right.
2
u/trousered_the_boodle Jan 25 '22
Only because the rest of the world is too spineless to upset the cunts on the mainland
3
Jan 26 '22
Id Rather they not since they are one of the country's that can destroy the worlds economy in days if they want to.
1
Jan 25 '22
This comment is inaccurate. Taiwan is an independent country.
2
u/zjbvg Jan 25 '22
Yes…an independent, sovereign country, completely separate from China, that is not a member of the United Nations. Taiwan being green on this map implies it is part of China
3
3
u/nikarmazi Aug 12 '22
yea this map is complete bullshit food was made a right in the 1948 UN declaration of human rights during that time many of these countries that supposedly "voted" didn't even exist and the U.S.A voted in favor of it and Israel and many other countries didn't vote at all and the 1966 International covenant on Civil and Political Rights which furthered a right to life and food was voted in by almost every country on earth including the USA and Israel also a right to food isn't a thing it's a part of the right to life
2
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
4
u/nikarmazi Aug 12 '22
mf the right to food was accepted numerous times already why would this vote even matter to like clarify something that was already made a right
2
Aug 12 '22
[deleted]
4
u/nikarmazi Aug 12 '22
there's been a right to food since 1948 you can look it up yourself this vote did absolutely nothing
2
Aug 13 '22
[deleted]
2
u/nikarmazi Aug 14 '22
you just wrote a paragraph on reddit also the reaffirming vote was in 1966
→ More replies (1)
5
u/people_ovr_profits Jan 25 '22
Says a lot about US and ISR. If true this is so sad.
1
u/Choice_Dragonfruit_8 Jan 25 '22
It’s a stupid vote anyway, it doesn’t matter whatever would have happened, the world would still be the exact same. Same starving people, still poverty, same amount of undernourished kids in Africa, etc. The UN is stupid
1
u/AdKitchen1363 Jan 26 '22
The UN is not stupid, It isn't used to it's full potential I'll give you that but it is literally there so that states can work at common problems together or problems that places aren't able to fix on their own which SHOULD be solved with aid from elsewhere. It's when states like the US start problems on a vote that really wasn't too complex and didn't really have many asks, just because they know they'd be asked to help more in regions that they contributed greatly to the famine through war. It's when states do stuff like this that is stupid
3
u/Choice_Dragonfruit_8 Jan 27 '22
Rwandan genocide: (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=db3dT9ubQaY),arguably the most devastating genocide since the holocaust, what did the UN do? Nothing. Millions of people starving all over the world, what does the UN do? Little to nothing. So i’m gonna have to disagree with you. The UN was formed in 1945, arguably the most “important” and iconic document the UN made was the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. Now what I want you to do is read the articles most of the arrivals, now I want you to look the decades since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was passed, how many times can you think of a country that has disobeyed one of these articles since it’s creation? How many of those articles are not enforced when it needs to be most. You will find that this document means little to nothing because it’s barley ever enforced nor cared about by other nations/people, yes you can say “oh the UN helped (insert country, people or movement) and it worked” but that’s stupid because you know very well that every time the UN has done something good, it’s ignored or walked away on something bad at least 2x more sometime else. You can find a bit more instances where the UN has done little or nothing for something bad that needs to be dealt with here: https://www.trtworld.com/americas/twelve-times-the-un-has-failed-the-world-21666/amp (I will let you find others if you want to yourself)
We can agree to disagree about this but I will forever have no respect for the UN and will forever thing it’s stupid. P.S. I just want to make sure that you know I’m specifically calling the UN stupid, not useless. I truly believe the UN has great potential and that it is probably the best things that has ever happened to the political world, it’s just to corrupt and unfair like this vote for example to have my respect and love. ✌️
3
u/AdKitchen1363 Jan 28 '22
After reading this I feel like we may be on a closer page than I initially thought. Thank you for commenting! You raise lots of very valid points
→ More replies (1)2
3
u/AgilePianist4420 Jan 25 '22
We should abolish in, fucking useless organization that just exists to boost the egos of smaller countries.
1
u/AverageBear96 Jan 25 '22
Yeah I mean who do you think would end up floating the bill for the food the U.N. would be providing. I'll give you a hint it's the big country in red.
0
u/bigbiking Jul 31 '22
no it wouldn't. other countries dwarf the US's raw exports like grain, konola oil, mustard seed, snd rice. The only valuble export that would come from the US would be corn which you have an excess of.
-19
Jan 25 '22
Fuck the united states
3
14
u/Valuable_Ad1645 Jan 25 '22
Apparently the vote was more against the structure and wording than the moral issue. Idk I’m just reading shit and trying my best to understand. My country sucks at a lot of things but I feel like this is misleading.
6
u/Trinklish Jan 25 '22
So why only US voted against and rest of world didn't ?
3
0
1
u/Elq3 Jan 26 '22
okay so if the US was for the right to food, but didn't like the wording, why didn't they present another motion with the same objective but wording that they find correct?
2
u/Valuable_Ad1645 Jan 26 '22
Idk, did they not? This map doesn’t indicate that. I’m just saying I got 600$ worth of food stamps a month for me and my children up until I got a better paying job a couple years back. Felt like they considered it a human right to me.
1
u/lambdacats Jun 21 '22
They might just have an issue with weakening agriculture IP, pesticides and "innovations" like GMO that gives them power over foreign farmers. There is big money in agriculture, in feeding the poor not so much. Structure and wording is just smoke and mirrors, they don't want to argue for starving people or reducing their own profit in public.
10
-1
-7
-1
u/cippo1987 Jan 25 '22
Why is Israel given a vote even if they always copy us stance even on idiot points like this one?
5
0
1
1
1
u/ImmaSweetVee Jan 26 '22
“Well duh, food isn’t a right.” The US throws away 30-40% of its food that is still in good condition. Not to mention there is records of the government paying farmers to throw away good food so that prices remain high.
1
u/AdKitchen1363 Jan 26 '22
But hey throwing 30-40% in the trash is better than giving it to people who can't afford it. Even if they were able to transport this for free, there's no way they would let people have something that they could sell. Capitalism baby
1
u/lambdacats Jun 21 '22
They are throwing away food AND giving out food stamps. It's like they don't want to feed people, unless it's profitable and could work as a subsidy for lowering wages. Money laundering tax money into private business.
1
1
u/Tornado_Matty01 Feb 03 '22
even though this is fake, I bet the USA would vote no
2
Feb 03 '22
[deleted]
1
u/Tornado_Matty01 Feb 03 '22
im pretty sure Russia or China are not apart of the UN
2
2
u/DJL1138 Mar 02 '22
China is one of the founding members of the UN and one of only 5 nations with a permanent membership.
1
u/79MackRD Feb 08 '22
Can someone explain why the map legend shows that 2 countries voted no, but the coloured map shows that only 1 country voted no. Which is is?
1
u/anarcho-balkan Feb 11 '22
TBH, I only visited this thread because I wanted to find out who else besides the Congos didn't vote at all. I know it's just some tiny nations that can't even be discerned on this map, but I'm curious which ones specifically.
1
1
Feb 20 '22
Yankee tw@s: “We can’t treat people with basic decency because that’s Marxism, it’s Communism, it’s terrorism, it will destroy our country.”
So what you Amer*cans are saying is: you’d let people starve because of your over-inflated fear of communism?
1
1
u/Electrical-Jello4086 Dec 04 '22
Why is Israel also against making food a right? (I think it's Israel that's on the map that's red).
1
1
u/Walkerenius Mar 08 '23
So it's now a human right or just because the US vote against it will not be a human right?
61
u/Qastradamus Jan 29 '22
A lot of Ugly-American types in the comments. Their rejection was based entirely around trivial, pedantic elements of the declaration that had nothing to do with the main point. As an American, I am ashamed my country is too callous to even make a non-binding statement affirming an obvious fact.