Eezyville

I find it funny that you're using the UN Security Counsel as some sort of authority. Could you tell me who are the 5 permanent members of that security counsel? Those resolutions are only as legal as the they are enforceable. Honestly if North Korea wants to supply weapons to Russia and Russia accepts then who can stop them? No other country or entity has any authority of either. The best you can do is sanctions or war. But to give another example of how the UN has no power unless granted power; Everyone seems to forget that NATO, a defense alliance, attacked a sovereign European nation.

NATO countries attempted to gain authorisation from the UN Security Council for military action, but were opposed by China and Russia, who indicated that they would veto such a measure. As a result, NATO launched its campaign without the UN's approval, stating that it was a humanitarian intervention. The UN Charter prohibits the use of force except in the case of a decision by the Security Council under Chapter VII, or self-defence against an armed attack – neither of which were present in this case.

-- From Wikipedia.

So here we have NATO itself ignoring the UN Security Counsel.

I didn't say either was right or wrong I just said that it was fair. The way you feel about a conflict doesn't change how either side fight. And your historical examples are only relevant because we were on the winning side so of course we fell it was the right thing to do. But during that time period the American public was very against getting involved with another war in Europe after WW1. FDR was looking for every way possible to convince the American public to support the Allies but during that time period we were very isolationist.

So to answer your question, No Sweden should not have sent weapons to the Germans in 1941. Not because the US sent weapons to the UK but because Sweden was neutral by their own policy.

Do people who are convicted of stuff then acquitted on technicalities really think that the public just forget all their past crimes because a piece of paper says “sorry – they were prosecuted one day too late”?

Most people have their own lives to worry about. Sure some people will cut him off but most don't care. That's way too much effort for a stranger.

Everyone has a right to fairness under the law and it's their lawyer's job to ensure that. The lawyers who protect the rights of the people who disgust you are the same lawyers who protect the rights of the people you sympathize with.

lmao! Man that's hilarious!

"We have a memory leak that could lead to a security issue.We should do something about it."

"I made a process that periodically kills those tasks. No one will notice the problem now."

The unicorn killer will have a memory leak as well. 💀

Could you elaborate? I use Gitlab bit i'm not a security expert.

I think we should use AI to decifer their language and send them messages saying, "Chill bro! I'm just passing through." We'll probably get a response going something like, "You in the wrong neighborhood boy!"

They should have been going low from the beginning. Nice guys finish last.

Govt agencies and public figure use X, Facebook, and other corporate social media because of a few reasons. 1) Everyone is already there, 2) they don't have to manage servers and security (we all know they like to outsource security), 3) they have someone to blame and sue when things go wrong, 4) the product is too good and takes too much money to replicate. Probably some other reasons i don't know about.

Why are the bears depressed?

Edit: OK after reading the article it mentioned a Florida bill that allows people to shoot bears they perceive as a threat to their person, pets, of dwelling and the Republican sponsor of the bill wrote it because of bears high on crack. WTF...

Is she saying stupid shit like the to get attention?