You do realise the whole x-gen fighter is nothing but marketing bullshit from the US defense industry, right?
The worst plane in the world, is the one sitting on the ground. And the F35 cannot sustain prolonged operation. Can barely sustain intermittent operations. It’s gonna sit in the hangar, mechanics desperately trying to maintain it, all while your airfields and hangars are being shelled day 1. Good luck with that.
I have a feeling that the carbon budget is going to be the least of our concerns soon.
I liked it better when I didn’t know the names of various American ministers
Please, someone tell me I’m not the only idiot that read this and thought they were trying to do the other type of mining.
The one that doesn’t make sense at all, but rather than realising that’s not the mining they were doing, because it doesn’t make sense. I just got more confused as to what they possibly could have found there worth mining for in the middle of a war.
Holy shit, so so many. But I’ll mention some favorites that I don’t think everyone has seen.
Top Secret, The Pentagon wars, Down Periscope, Men in Tights, CHIPS.
I think they’re all quite funny. But if I had to suggest just one, CHIPS will probably be a solid choice for most peoole. It’s modern and really funny. (18+)
Hold on, you’re complaining that I’ve repeatedly somehow insulted you personally by saying going along with Trumps notion that this isn’t a war is defending his stance that it isn’t a war.
Yet you started by saying I simping for hegseth, and that’s not a personal attack?
Yes. Declaration of war and an act of war are two different things. Very astute of you. But they both lead to the same thing. War.
You don’t have to declare war to start one. Or be in one. You can just as easily start one by committing an act of war. That’s why it’s called “an act of war”. It’s an action someone would take if they were at war with someone.
I know you don’t think the US is at war with Iran. But I say Bombing their military installations and sinking their navy is more than proof of the US being at war with Iran. And pretty much every single country would agree with that.
You seem to be offended by just about anything. I don’t think it’s a direct personal attack to say I think you’re a moron if you believe I’m defending hegseth after I’ve stated numerous times that I’m not, noting his actual war crime of bombing shipwrecked civilians outside of Venezuela and hoping he is brought to justice for it.
If that’s a belief you still retain then it is what it is. If not, you have nothing to be upset about.
Oh, and I comprehend what I quoted you perfectly. If you read it thoroughly you will understand that militaries can exercise a litany of ‘possible actions’ that does not constitute them personally sailing by and picking up survivors. As long as it’s a decision taken in “good faith”. Which is in itself up for some serious interpretation
Good luck. You’ll need it.
We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.
By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.
What’s the insult? You feel insulted that I said going along with Trumps notion that this somehow isn’t a war is defending him?
You cannot seriously believe that what defines a war is your congress approval of it. So if Trump decides to bomb China. That’s not Trump starting a war then? Because Congress didn’t approve it?
if that’s genuinly your belief, I’m lost for words.
You can start a war without a declaration of war. Sinking another country’s warship is an act of war.
The only reason Trump isn’t calling it a war (except for all the times he genuinly referred to it as “war”) is because that would be impeachable and illegal under US law.
“Special combat operations” laughable. It’s exactly what Russia claimed they’re doing in Ukraine. “Oh we’re not at war with Ukraine… it’s just a special military operation”.
you’re an actual idiot if you think im defending the sinking of the ship. im not. the only thing i’ve said is that it isn’t a war crime. and neither is what followed
you can think it’s shitty, cowardly, reprehensable, disgusting, that’s all fine. those are opinions. what isnt opinion is that it did not constitute a war crime.
The scope of what a Party to the conflict is actually required to do on the basis of Article 18(1) will depend on the interpretation of the qualifier ‘possible’. What will be possible in the circumstances is inherently context-specific. Thus, the measures that must be taken in each case have to be determined in good faith, based on the circumstances and the information reasonably available to both the commanders on the spot or nearby and to the other organs acting on behalf of the Party to the conflict.
In this regard, the fact that the obligation of Article 18(1) applies to the ‘Party to the conflict’ as a whole is critical. Thus, it may occur that the commander of a single warship or even of an entire naval task-force considers, in a good-faith assessment, that it is impossible to undertake, with the assets under his or her command, any of the activities required under Article 18. This does not, however, absolve those overseeing the commander’s operations (who will have a fuller picture of the situation and may be able to deploy other assets) from assessing what ‘possible measures’ can – and therefore must – be taken. Nor does it absolve the commander from considering other activities that are possible, such as alerting nearby coastal authorities or other vessels in the area or making an ‘appeal to the charity’ of neutral vessels in the sense of Article 21.
“Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.”
No, it is not the law that you have to warn a military ship before engaging it in combat. The only ones you have to warn are merchant ships, or civilian ships. You are just wrong.
tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
Ok… how about we start where you said Submarines were “litterally” invented to seize and capture other ships. (That was not what they were literally invented to do. Just because early German uboats snuck up on merchant ships to seize contraband, doesn’t mean it was “literally” what they were invented for.)
And I’m not obscuring or trying to hide behind anything. I’ve been nothing but clear.
It’s a cowardly, planned attack on an allegedly unarmed vessel. But it’s not illegal. They are under no obligation to preemptively warn Sri Lanka. It is believed however they did tell Sri Lanka of where people had to be rescued after torpedoing it.
And you are at war with Iran. Just like Russia is at war with Ukraine. War was a fact the moment the US starting bombing Iran. I know the US doesn’t want to call it a war. Because if they do, they have to admit Trump started one without congressional approval.
By not calling this war for what it is, you’re literally defending Trump.
And I’m not even remotely defending hegseth, you and others claimed attacking this ship was a war crime. It’s not. And that by not rescuing the sailors personally, was another war crime. It can be. But unless the US had other ships that could safely do so in the vicinity, it’s not a war crime to instead signal a third country and informing them of their location.
That’s not me defending anyone. I’m simply telling you it wasn’t a war crime.
What was a war crime, and probably breaks lots of other “international laws” was the indiscriminate bombing of Venezuelan civilian ships. Particularly the part where after bombing a ship, which was disabled by the strike. They then ordered a second strike. Ensuring the death of any potential survivors.
THAT was a blatant crime and an actual illegal order. And everyone involved should be tried as such.
If the US had other ships nearby, closer than Sri Lankas ships, and still deliberately chose to not help the sailors in the water. That would be utterly reprehensible.
As for the submarine, I can understand why they did not want to surface.
And what does that have to do with this specific incident? Nothing.
submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact.
That’s not what I found laughable.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
The former part has been a thing for hundreds of years.
But yeah I suppose they would use it to change the price dynamically on a constant basis based on demand.
Though I’m not sure that’s even legal to this extent in EU. It’s a product for purchase. Not a stock. But you’re right. It does sound bad.
It’s nothing new. It’s been done for the past 20 years. Products are priced differently in different countries based on their economy.
You have been able to do this in Steam for decades now. You can/could use VPN along with changing your location in steam, to trick it into thinking you are in that region. You would then get that regions prices.
E.g, lots of Steam games used to be noticeably cheaper if Steam thought you were in Russia as opposed to Germany.
When was the UN peacekeeping force actually keeping peace? From what I remember, they had boots on the ground in Rwanda, several bases. And still, stood by and did nothing of consequence to stop the butchering of civilians.
It is still a military warship. Surely you don’t actually think countries can just put up an “unarmed flag” and expect their warships can safely make it across to a dry dock or for rearmament.
How do you KNOW it was unarmed? Because they had a flag up? Because they said so? Because India boarded the Iranian ship and conducted a thorough search of the entire interior? I’m genuinly curious as to how you are so confident it didn’t carry a single shell, rocket, torpedo or missile.
You cannot possibly think any nation at war would let an enemy warship sail by without consequence just because they claim they’re unarmed.
If Russia sailed a warship right outside Ukrainian waters with an “unarmed flag”. Do you think Ukraine would just let it be? Oh damn guys, they say it’s unarmed. Guess we have no choice but to let it hang around…
I understand you feel strongly about what happened. But that is not going to change that it was a legal target in war.
There are lots of things that are legal, but still cowardly and shitty to do.
There’s no law that says you can’t rip off a giant fart outside a restaurants outdoor serving area. It would be legal. But incredibly shitty.
I’ve always said I think it’s fine in filler content, it can allow small teams to quickly populate their world with background stuff that you never notice. Except when it’s not there.
But with great power comes great responsibility. And I don’t necssesarily think most can handle that.