The claim, made by the NYT's of saving Aleppo is, of course, entirely false.What the NATO allies really want, is to legitimize their remaking of the middle east, by have their shiny happy servile UN front group rubber stamp their tyrannical machinations (cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control)This news only makes me detest the UN even more! And I wouldn’t have thought that possible!NYT's: Oped written by the foreign minister of Qatar:
The world has the power to stop the bloodshed in Syria. Under the auspices of the Responsibility to Protect and Chapter VII of its charter, the United Nations has the authority to take action. Qatar calls on the members of the Security Council to set aside their geopolitical calculations and honor their commitment to protect the lives of the defenseless in Syria.We strongly urge the Security Council to protect the civilian population of Syria by immediately creating safe havens in northern and southern Syria, and by enforcing a no-fly zone. In the event that the Security Council is unable to agree on these very basic actions, we call on the United Nations General Assembly to demand implementation of Resolution 377A. This measure, also known as the “Uniting for Peace” resolution and the “Acheson Plan,” which dates from 1950, provides a means of circumventing a deadlocked Security Council and enabling the United Nations to enact collective resistance to aggression.
UN- Uniting for Peace General Assembly Resolution 377AVery clearly in the past when situations haven’t gone the way the US and co. have wanted them to! The UN has accommodated them in their desires to circumvent human decency & morality and get their wars on!1950 Korea:
On 3 November 1950, the General Assembly adopted resolution 377 A (V), which was given the title “Uniting for Peace”. The adoption of this resolution came as a response to the strategy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) to block any determination by the Security Council on measures to be taken in order to protect the Republic of Korea against the aggression launched against it by military forces from North Korea. General view of the General Assembly Hall in Flushing Meadow. At the initial stage of this armed conflict, in June 1950, the Security Council had been able to recommend to the Members of the United Nations to “furnish such assistance to the Republic of Korea as may be necessary to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area” (resolution 83 (1950) of 27 June 1950). The resolution could be passed because the USSR, at that time, boycotted the meetings of the Security Council with the aim of obtaining the allocation of the permanent Chinese seat to the communist Government in Beijing. It assumed that in its absence the Security Council would not be able to discharge its functions since Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter provides that substantive resolutions of the Security Council require an affirmative vote of nine members “including the concurring votes of the permanent members”. The majority of the members of the Security Council, however, were of the view that absence from the meeting room could not prevent the key organ of the United Nations from acting validly, a view that was later endorsed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J Reports 1971, p. 16, at para. 22). Given that its protests remained fruitless, the USSR sent again, as from August 1950, a delegation to the meetings of the Council which cast a negative vote on a United States draft resolution condemning the continued defiance of the United Nations by the North Korean authorities. In order to overcome this impasse, the United States, under the leadership of its Foreign Secretary Dean Acheson, succeeded in persuading the General Assembly that it should claim for itself a subsidiary responsibility with regard to international peace and security, as enunciated by Article 14 of the Charter. The result of these efforts was resolution 377 A (V).
The US wanted to attack Korea. The USSR was impeding the US from attacking Korea. Including boycotting the meeting, on the grounds that "Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter provides that substantive resolutions of the Security Council require an affirmative vote of nine members “The UN which is nothing more then the shiny happy face of NATO, simply circumvented it's own charter and made new rules to legitimize the desired actions of the US to attack Korea.A war that has never really ended. Today we have the black pope 'begging for a ceasefire'Another injured child being bandied about for maximum pr effectI find myself just disgusted this morning- Bitterly disgusted!