TheTechnician27

True. See WP:NOT and WP:CON for some idea of how this whole thing works.

Am I allowed to steal the chatroom analogy?

You fail to realize that this is the most meaningful action that the UN General Assembly can take against the US on this matter. The UNGA can be very effective in facilitating international cooperation and settling minor disputes but really has no tools in its arsenal to meaningfully effect action to stop something like this.

I can hopefully demonstrate this by asking you what lever(s) the UN can pull to actually directly address this. Before you say “send aid!”, they are. And before you point to something like its past military intervention in Korea, be fully aware that that’s not at all applicable here: the US has a permanent seat on the Security Council and therefore absolute veto power; the only reason the UN was able to intervene in Korea was because the USSR didn’t use their Security Council veto; and the US is not capable of being directly matched militarily by any nation on Earth, let alone in their home waters. And before you say “sanctions”, well I’ll give you one guess what organ of the UN controls sanctions.

It’s still worth voting to show the basically unanimous agreement. 187–2–1 (with one of the ‘Against’ being the US itself) is a clear expression of overwhelming disapproval – to an extent that even I, a US citizen who supports lifting the restrictions, didn’t know how pervasive and long-lasting it’s been until seeing this. It forecloses on any sort of bullshit argument that “that was then, this is now” or that it wasn’t like that for some period of time or whatever. And it showcases the complete abdsurdity that no country on Earth except the US itself and what’s effectively a US protectorate actually thinks there’s any merit to this policy.

For what it’s worth, it’s actively strengthened my already strong resolve that this policy is insane.