Maybe a seeming epidemic of 'imposter syndrome' is really a society that elevates boasters, braggarts, and blusterers, and so anyone else who somehow rises is genuinely out of place.
Lol, we never will though. We're just going to have to add one more insufferable war crime discourse alongside the highway of death and the Belgrano.
This entire war is immoral and unnecessary, and by the UN charter illegal, so nothing involved in this war is "the right call". But warships are valid targets, end of statement, which means that you are allowed to sink them when you are at war with their owner.
They are if they can, but typically they won't be able to.
Leaving the survivors might be a war crime, but it's highly dependent on circumstances. Specifically, if they thought there was a danger in surfacing (because there were other ships), it's not a war crime.
In general, submarines are not going to be in a position to rescue survivors for this reason
It's interesting you say that, because I take the opposite view, namely that attacking an unarmed (war)ship 2000 miles away from a combat zone is not a war crime. The difference is that I'm correct and you're not.
"The opposing soccer team should be disqualified. We just found out that their goalie is the guy who snuck up on our star striker yesterday and broke his legs. Also they just hit the ball with their head, which I'm pretty sure is against the rules."
I know a lot of people take a sort of instrumentalist view of all of this and don't really care whether it's technically a war crime because they think it's wrong anyway.
I don't feel like I should have to explain that making a bad argument alongside your good argument is less convincing.
Depends on whether the sub thought they could safely surface
You know what *is* a war crime? Blowing up a school full of little girls. You can just go with that one.
The "is it a war crime to sink a warship during a war" discourse is going to make me go crazy
Do you think Doocy cried after this?
It's ok to hate the people who voted for this.
I think the only war crime arguments that really help an anti-war cause are things people find abhorrent anyway, like bombing schools and hospitals, not things that require multiple steps of reasoning, like misusing the red cross symbol or wearing enemy uniforms.
You can, actually, because not every single thing that happens in an illegal war is illegal. But the main reason I push back on this one whenever I see it is "our sub illegally attacked a war ship during a war!" (in addition to not being true) only appeals to well educated liberals
We've got plenty of things we can prosecute these guys for. "A warship sank another warship during a war" isn't one of them, and doesn't have to be
We haven't had a declared war since Korea. In general LOAC does not hinge on whatever domestic process a country goes to war by, but whether a state of war clearly exists
The younger Ellison, at least one Murdoch, Bill Ackman, Steve Wynn, Joe Ricketts, the Adelson wife, and Robert Mercer. There are a lot more honestly, but pick the worst ten.
Anyway, for all of Iran's multitudinous faults, it's the US and Israel that launched an unnecessary war that will kill thousands and make life worse for millions, possibly billions, of people. They are the "bad guys", which is to say they are responsible and need to stop.
We kind of just went through this with Israel and Palestine, so I'm not really sure why people are still struggling with it so much
It's possible to have a more complex understanding of geopolitics than "these are the good guys who share my values and these are the bad guys who don't". Sometimes neither side shares your values!
I have an electric car and solar panels. Turned out to be good decisions.
I'd accept 1LT because 2LT to 1LT is effectively an automatic promotion anyway after about 2 years. But skipping all the way to Captain is nuts. Captains have real responsibility!
All these motherfuckers from trump on down being like "well erm hrm hrm we never said it was gonna be a bed of roses!!" as though we were all begging for a big beautiful war and just didn't understand the consequences are making me lose my mind. We told you! WE told YOU, you shitbags!
Probably some media people too. Anyway, the list is really not very long and I'm not convinced they would be automatically replaced with equally ghoulish people because of whatever structural forces.
It's like 10 particularly awful billionaires and another 40 people in government? Something like that.
This is the sort of thing I'm *highly* primed to believe, and yet... I really don't think it's true. I'm pretty sure there's a list of maybe 50 people in this country you could guillotine and basically fix everything, at least in the short term.
And even if write the law to make it unpardonable, you can't guarantee that the law will be upheld or left in place. A death sentence, on the other hand, is always unpardonable after it is carried out.
Well, if we're talking about serious legal reform, we can limit death penalty cases to the above and, simultaneously, limit the ability to appeal.
Like: all death penalty cases should be argued in front of a special tribunal and the sentence should be final.
What I've been saying lately is that there basically are crimes that are disproportionately civilizationally destabilizing and things like J6 or everything this admin is doing fall under that category.
