All of this is happening because Israel is blackmailing American Pedophiles into war.
These murderous pedophiles will do anything to distract from the Epstein files.
This bastard killed hundreds of defenseless people and we are doing condemnation here
He should be hanged
During the state of the union speech, Trump PROUDLY said that people are afraid to go fishing around Venezuela
I expect this to be unpopular with the hive:
When you join a military, you take the risk that someone might shoot at you at some point.
It’s a warship, not a civilian ship, what’s the problem? I can’t think of a “better” target in a war than a warship.
Is that little knob on the bow for spraying lemonade at the thirsty? Are those boxes in the back for delivering free meals to underprivileged students?
Someone help me see your viewpoint as to why sinking this ship is an especially evil action getting as much attention as a literal girl’s school.
Your comment does multiple things at once.
You are asking why the outrage over this vs the school. Well, that’s a false dilemma. Nobody says the school bombing was A-OK.
You’re asserting that being in a country’s Navy makes it so that you accept the risk someone might shoot you. Well, nobody says it isn’t so. But that doesn’t make that loss of life A-OK. This is especially shocking given the brutal nature of a ship being torpedoed like that.
The United States has not declared war on Iran according to their own fucking constitution. They only make a bullshit self defense argument. But the ship was in an unrelated part of the world, in Shri Lanka, so literally unable to threaten anything. So the killing felt gratuitous, cold blooded, brutal, unnecessary. The US could have neutralized the ship in a more humane way, given them a chance to surrender, etc. Instead they chose this.
So, no, this isn’t more important than the bombing of the school, and yes it is a warship but it’s still brutal and shocking. Your scolding of people’s natural aversion to this massacre is just not helpful.
Your comment also does several things at once.
-
Still fails to tell why sinking a warship gets more comment than literally massacring protesters or literally bombing a school.
-
I was operating under the basic assumption we’re adults who agree war is evil, and people die in wars. War is never fucking “A-OK” as you describe it. 2a. War exists, war is inherently evil, because humans are humans. If you volunteer for war, and then don’t want to participate, surrender yourself to a neutral country.
-
WOAOWOOWWOWOW a nation didn’t actually do the political process of " I declare war"??? Grow up.
Throughout the full history of submarine warfare, warning “unarmed” ships they should surrender has resulted in submarines getting blown the fuck out of the water by “unarmed” ships.
How is this “brutal and shocking”? They could have sailed to a neutral port and surrendered to the neutral nation, as another Iranian ship just did.
Your statement that this gets more attention than killings of civilians is not as obviously true as you make it. This is the first thread on Lemmy I’ve seen for example specifically discussing the ship whereas I’ve seen multiple others discussing the school bombing. So I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about here.
About the other two, again I’m not sure where you’re getting at. You’re digging your heels on what exactly? That people should not be upset about this? My points 2 and 3 tried to describe some reasons why people might feel upset. Your point is what? “Fuck your feelings”? I mean ok, you can say that, but then what?
-
I have heard through (unsourced reddit comments keep in mind) that the US knew about the war games and was supposed to take place and pulled out last minute. So they knew that the ship was partaking and still blew it up. The US participated in the 2024 edition, so it seems like it was true.
I also don’t understand that would be a sticking point. It was in international waters when it was sank, so I assume it was returning home to get armed with shells, torpedoes, and missiles. Why wait for a warship to become an active threat before striking it?
It presumably had the option to either surrender itself to a neutral port, as another Iranian warship has done, or fly the white flag.
The ship was waiting to surrender to Sri Lanka I think. There was another one that had priority that did surrender while the one that was hit was next in line.
Because they knew it wasn’t a threat. They could have intercepted it, and the crew would likely have surrendered, and there would have been no senseless loss of life. It did not have that option as far as I can tell. It seems like Mr Social media content Hegseth wanted a video to share on socials to show how badass we are and opted to blow away innocents. That is fucked, and if you can’t see why, I can’t help you.
Submarines haven’t asked for surrenders in over a century. They stopped because ships that “should be unarmed” kept blowing them out if the water once they gave up stealth. Would you gamble your ship and crew on an Iranian warship following wargames rules to the T?
I see no reason to fight fair, why put our troops at unnecessary risk?
I also can’t think of a reason why we wouldn’t capture their unarmed ship, or at least give them ample opportunity and “incentive” to surrender. Honestly, the greatest show of strength is the ability to show compassion and humanity to your enemy. Think of how much power it would project to capture a whole warship, hold the crew as PoWs, treat them well, and return them well fed and cared for?
Instead, we blew them up and left the survivors stranded in the ocean for other nations to assist.
the ability to show compassion and humanity to your enemy. Think of how much power it would project to capture a whole warship, hold the crew as PoWs, treat them well, and return them well fed and cared for?
Woke. being woke is why the US keeps losing, so stop being woke and start winning
I shit you not, this is how these morons actually think.
One way to not put your troops at unnecessary risk would be not to start unnecessary wars.
Yeah, that too, but we’re talking about the US… Unnecessary war is like the trademark move of the republican party.
During WW2, many Italian and German POWs were sent to America for internment, and treatment, if they were wounded. I have met a three separate couples where the POW fell in love with his nurse, and after he was sent home after the war, he came right back and married his American nurse.
Behaving compassionately toward your enemy is the best thing an Army can do to quell post-war problems. MAGA is too Sociopathic to understand that concept. They feel that the only strategy is to crush the enemy, then subjugate them mercilessly, because they are inherently cruel, and that’s their idea of fun. They don’t consider the danger in creating another generation of motivated terrorists.
My grandma cooks a very authentic red sauce, allegedly, my great grandfather was in charge of some POWs stateside in WWII, and one of them was a chef before the war, so he had that guy come over and teach my great grandma how to cook a red sauce, and the recipe has literally been passed down for generations at this point.
Before you ask… I have not been granted the recipe yet.
Like he said in a speech: “We kick the ones that are already down.”
deleted by creator
Why Hegseth? He didn’t push the button, but some idiot to whom ordinary Americans would shout “thank you for your service.” “I’m just following orders” is not an excuse, many such people were shot by the Nuremberg Tribunal for war crimes they committed because someone ordered them to.
No one was shot as a result of Nuremberg trials. And only, like, nine people were hanged as a result of them.
It’s called command climate. The messaging from those in charge has a direct bearing on how the troops behave. Hegseth has consistently advocated brutality and disregard for international law and human life.
Because responsibility starts with leadership. It’s a very simple concept that current leaders ignore and we pay the price for.
The submarine commander didn’t do this unilaterally. He was clearly ordered to do so, and that order would have come from Hegseth or Trump.
Both, both is good
Who was the sub captian that obeyed the illegal order? Name rank and serial number please.
the whole thing about following illegal orders is complete bullshit and impossible for military personnel to follow… it’s just a pretence so the Murican military can claim moral superiority
Honestly, I don’t expect the rank and file members to make a stand. But a sub captain… I do. And from that person all the way up the chain that gave the order. I don’t expect this DOJ to do anything. So I just want names for now. And I want them public so those people can’t go anywhere without being known as the ones who failed to stop the illegal order.
It was not an illegal order. And it’s also entirely possible the captain didn’t know the status of the ships ammunition supply, or lack there of. Not that it changes anything from a legal standpoint.
But, it being a legal target doesn’t change the fact that it was cowardly. Both are true.
They knew it was unarmed it was leaving an event that involved unarmed ships, an event the US backed out of and then had a sub attack a ship they knew to be unarmed.
Seizure would be arguably legal, sinking it is not.
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.
An unarmed boat is not a warship as per international law. They fly flags that state they are unarmed as this one was.
Quit equivocating.
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…
It’s a military target, it isn’t a warship. When deployed unarmed to naval exhibitions they are deployed as auxillary, it’s the same as training ships.
Because it was boarded and inspected to take part in a fleet week of sorts, yes.
You can when it’s beyond combat zones and flying flags signaling peaceful intention and being unarmed. There’s a proportionality issue when it comes to striking military targets and moreover there’s an obligation to rescue crew.
It wasn’t anywhere near Iran unless you are somehow under the impression sri lanka is adjacent to Iran. And Ukraine tends to abide by normal military conventions so yes if they knew it to be unarmed they would likely seize the ship and not sink it.
Iran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#/media/File:Iran_(orthographic_projection).svg
Sri lanka:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#/media/File:Sri_Lanka_(orthographic_projection).svg
Location of sinking : https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1536/cpsprodpb/3188/live/10450900-17e7-11f1-b048-c9424b2cf5fd.png.webp
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?
So why is it a legal target. As pointed out, no state of war exists. So the boat wasn’t a legal target. But if we hand wave that away, not picking up the survivors is clearly against international law. And I can even hand wave the part about orders being legal, but I still want the names out there, I want the public to know that this captain left those men to die against every tradition of the navy and international laws/rules/guidelines. Public pressure can help ensure the next Captain stands up against such orders.
You seem to have some misconception of what constitutes a legal target and what doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if you are at war or not. Warships, are military targets. They are valid targets. You do not have to be in war to sink one. But it’s probably going to start one.
And no. It is not illegal for a submarine to remain submerged. Submarines are not expected to conduct rescue operations. They do have to do something. Notifying someone else as to where there might be survivors, is something.
You are only required to conduct a rescue operation if you think it is safe to do so. You are not required to rescue sailors if you believe it could put your ship in danger.
None of this means you can’t feel the way you do. That’s fine. You think the captain is a coward and scum for not helping them. Sure, I’m not trying to take that away. All I’m saying is, the order was not illegal. The act was not illegal, and the aftermath was also not illegal.
I’m really not sure why people are hyperfocusing on the one instance where the US didn’t commit a war crime. You have so many other things to pick from… why die on this hill? They bombed a God damn school for girls.
The article references the geneva convention as the document that requires rescuing the sailors. So that is where that part comes from. It is of cpurse unlikely to be as simply worded as that. So lets agree it may not be strictly speaking illegal. However, illegal is whatever the prosecutor decides to prosecute for and that the judge agrees is illegal. In some cases a jury too.
But let’s put that aside. My goal was to identify the person who was the last person to reasonably expect to reject the order. In this case the captain of the sub. Name and shame. Give people in that position in the future at least some reason to pause and think before doing such things. Just following orders doesn’t cut it at that level. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a moral one. We need to shine a light on those people, let them know we know what they did. Make them live with that.
Again. This wasn’t an illegal order. There’s nothing for a captain to interpret as illegal. They’re targeting a warship belonging to the enemy.
If a captain just blatantly refuse orders, because they have a moral problem with it, rather than a legal one, they’d be subjective to court martial. They could end up prison for a very long time. Or worse.
Everyone that has served in any country. Knows that you as a captain/pilot/sailor/infantry, mechanic, whatever. You don’t have all the information. You have to trust your superiors and their superiors that they know what they’re doing.
So unless you’re given a blatantly illegal order. You follow it. Because other people’s lives may very well depend on it. I don’t think the captain was the person that should reasonably reject the order. Partly because you have no idea what information that captain had available to them.
You do you. If you want to name and shame people you will do that regardless of what anyone else thinks. But the reasons you’ve laid out does not support your argument that the captain is the problem.
So I wasn’t talking about the strike as much as not aiding the sailors. Sinking the boat, while reprehensible, would be a hard order to defy. Rescuing the sailors until other help arrived though. That would be reasonable to do, even if ordered not to. Leaning on the Geneva convention as support may not save a person. But it would still be the honorable thing to do.
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.
The entire strikes are illegal as the United States is not in a state of war with Iran.
Besides, “I was just following orders” has never and will never be accepted as a justification.
It might be illegal under US law. I wouldn’t know. I’m not a US lawyer. But what I do know is that it’s not a war crime. And it doesn’t break any “international law”.
The international body that is supposed to look into these things would be the UN security counsel. At which both US and Russia are permanent members and both have veto powers. So good luck getting anything done there
There was a precedent in Nuremberg you should look into
Oh wow. Okay, any particular part I should direct my focus on that says its illegal to attack an enemy’s warship in international waters?
Or are you just throwing around some words to read somewhere thinking it sounds clever?
Yeah, the part about following orders not being a valid defense is a good start, my little war crimes defender.
And what does that have to do with this specific incident? Nothing.
He also decided to not help the survivors.
It’s a submarine. What do you expect them to do? They are not equipped to handle POW’s
It is believed Sri Lanka was notified which were at the scene quickly after it sank.
They surface, they deploy lifeboats. They treat the wounded and hand them off to locals. Just like submarines have been doing for a very long time. As was pointed out, even the Nazis didn’t abandon survivors. Sri Lanka may have been their quickly, but quickly in nautical terms is hours at best. The sub could have hung around and aided the survivors at least that long.
Absolutely this.
You are right about nazi subs helping sailors. They would carry them on top of the sub, while towing the rest from a lifeboat. And then they stoped doing that. Because they were fired upon by allied planes while they were towing the lifeboat. So they cut the line and submerged.
That was the last time a submarine tried to help sailors in WW2.
Submarine countermeasures have only increased since then.
Another reason for the submarine to not surface is because they don’t want to let anyone else know which submarine is where.
I’m not gonna say sinking an unarmed warship returning from an exercise is cool. But it’s not a war crime if it’s in international waters, And it’s also not a war crime for a submarine to remained submerged. They are simply not expected to conduct rescue operations.
If you actually bothered to read what you linked. You would see this paragraph
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.
And also
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.
How was it a legal target? We are not at war as idiot orange says.
You are in a defacto war. Despite whatever orange man says. The ship was inside international waters. It belongs to the nation you are attacking. It was a military ship. It is a legal target.
What’s not a legal target are the civilian boats they shot down outside of Venezuela.
Even the Japanese technically declared war before they attacked pearl harbor. That the US gov was too disorganized to get the message to pearl harbor is not their fault.
So usa’s ships are legal targets for all world countries?
If you want to start a war with the US, sure.
Attacking a military ship is generally not a war crime (as defined by international law such as the Geneva treaties, Rome Statute etc…). It is an act of war (same as invasion or bombardment of another country), and is likely to see retaliation by the attacked country.
Aggression (i.e. unprovoked acts of war) is against the Charter of the United Nations, which also includes the International Court of Justice as a dispute resolution mechanism. It is up to the United Nations Security Council (at which the US has a veto) to authorise enforcement of ICJ rulings.
If a nation is acting to protect another nation facing aggression from the US, it would be legal for the attack US military ships. The reason why they wouldn’t would more be that it would likely bring counter-retaliation from the US.
Legal by whose standards? The international law’s? No one enforces that. Unless it’s to benefit the richest. Most international law is followed basically on the honor system.
By the US’s standards, everything is legal because the president has no limitations because our government will never pass those limitations on a president. If it was illegal, no one is can or will enforce it.
Who cares about “legal”?
Rules for thee not for me
Actually the orange idiot keeps saying you are. It was Mike Johnson going the SMO route
Only Congress can declare war. Until then it’s a conflict.
A war is a war whether the aggressor decides to officially call it that or not
It’s just as much a war as Putin’s war in Ukraine is. The fact that Congress hasn’t gotten round to declaring it yet is moot
Oh I know, and you know, but there are legal definitions and issues with what he’s doing. Not that any of that matters regardless to the asshats in charge.
Hot take, if you elect a person who showed in their first term a total disrespect for international, national, and martial law maybe the kind of people you have in the armed forces aren’t likely to be any better. The smart, moral people who also were high enough in the chain of command to matter have likely been purged or jumped ship to something less problematic.
The naive belief that any laws matter at this late hour is hard to understand, and harder to respect. This isn’t going to blow over and “go back to normal.” Which incidentally wasn’t great either.
Well, I less care about prosecution that isn’t going to happen, and more about name and shame. That can do a lot to shape future behaviour.
I think it’s clear that Americans were always so ruthless, depraved and racist. Over the past decades they simply had good PR. They killed thousands of civilians in Hiroshima just to show off and then engaged in decades long campaign of murder, rape and plunder all over the world. The only thing that saved them from being seen for what they are was good marketing: movies selling the American dream, well behaved politicians pretending they are leading civilized country and economic power keeping everyone else in check. This is simply the mask falling off. Trump and his administration are to stupid to play the PR game and everyone can see what US really is.
Iran’s military would NEVER attack a defenseless target!
How about we destroy all of their military assets and if the soldiers don’t want to get killed, they can desert?
“We”?
Where you deployed to, chickenhawk?
How about we try and be better behaved than goddamned terrorists?
No? You don’t want to meet that incredibly low standard? Then congrats, you’re also a terrorist. Great job. America is a terrorist nation under Donald “Pig who rapes kids” Trump.
Whataboutism.
who the fuck are you destroy other countries military assets? americans are all scum without any exception, fuck off
When you have to prove that US is actually not worse than a brutal regime but only just as bad you’re not doing as great as you think.
Okay but what armed conflict ever do you sit and wait for them to pick up ammo.
Basically the one in which you don’t want to look like an asshole and a monster. US is not going to face any consequences here, this all about optics. US started the entire conflict and has big advantage. It didn’t have to kill all those people. It chose to do it and did in the most cowardly way. Any invader doing something like this would be condemned and US is simply proving they are as depraved as any other brutal regime. For now they are simply as bad as the Nazis or the Soviets but looks like they are trying to prove they are actually worse.
deleted by creator
So just ‘men’ then? Or you don’t have genocide in Africa?
But if Americans are specially racists and ruthless is an interesting question. On one hand I’m pretty sure they simply took advantage of their position on international stage and many other countries would do the same in their situation. Russians for sure are not better. On the other hand any country could oppress big parts of their population the way US does and most civilized countries don’t do it. US is leading the world in mass incarceration, still loves death penalty and is practicing slavery. European countries could do the same but don’t for some reason. Is lack of power the only reason? I think American ideology has a lot to do with it. It managed to create the richest shithole in the world and that’s a very unique achievement. Personally I think it is the result of brainwashing every American goes trough.
I read somewhere how the educational system in the British Empire was specifically designed to create people able to ruthlessly govern over vast population of people. Is American system designed in the same way? A mix of superiority and stupidity that makes people immune to self-reflection and ready to brutalize everyone they see as the lower class?
I’m not sure of the ethnicities of the US personnel that drowned the unharmed Iranians but statistically speaking not all of the were white men but all of them US Americans.
So probably racist is not the right word.
No ethnicity has a monopoly on racism. It is global to the human condiction. It may be that in European / US it’s predominantly by white European people. But it’s not hard to find examples of it all around the world, extant and from the past where ethnicity, caste, religion, language is used as an excuse to hate on and subjugate some outside group.
I hope he angers Khrusty Noem to point of. Welp, we all know what she does when upset & confronted. Is there a line on what animal/or hegseth she might ixnay in retaliation for her unfortunate day? I know she was simply laterally moved b/c now she is S.H.E.I.L.D. Barbie. Oh Lawd, I wish so hard I was making this up. But nah, we are at this point on the map.🙏
More than 50% of the US voted for this.
About 100% of the US have no issues with this. Or when did you start opposing your government in another form, instead of complaining online? Other governments have been overthrown for less.
Anyways, fighting for the US or Iranian army is quite stupid nowadays. Nothing “proud” if you fight for a fascist or religious leader.
The Iranians are fighting for the survival of their country against the nazi pedophile coalition. thet are in no way comparable to those fighting for the nazi pedophile imperialists, despite many aspects of Iranian governance being unsavoury.
Okay just ignore the fact that 30k protestors were killed, the oppression of literally anything for decades and the killing of anyone who raised the voice against the Supreme Leader.
I was going to give a proper reply explaining the historical and geopilitical context, but I realized it would be like arguing witth a German in 1941 why I want the Soviet Union to win the war rather than the Reich, so I’ll ixnay that. May Iran continue to strike hard at the American and Israeli aggressors, and may they humiliate the nazi pigs for all the world to see.
Oh I agree, Israel has to be gone, and the fascist ‘muricans, too. But I also don’t mind that Khamenei is dead, as religious extremists are not one bit better than a zionist or nazi.
I’ll take moderate shia theocrats over nazis any day, but I digress. The truth is that Iran’s government has hardline factions and moderate factions. Outrside aggression makes the hardline faction stronger, and if America just left Iran alone, the moderates would eventually be predominant and Iran would eventually moderate into a secular or quasi-secular state.
However, at the same time the moderates are also the more neoliberal faction, while the religious conservatives are more economically progressive - kind of like Sharia law social democrats, in a sense.
And you know what is funny about all the shit Israel now caused? The CIA is actually very good at overthrowing foreign governments from the inside. It probably would have worked for Iran, as there are too many people remembering the good old Persian days. But Bibi and his right wing Jews just made everything worse, even for the citizens of Israel and Palestine.
The plan of economic sabotage and infiltration probably would have worked, but they’ve gone and shot themselves in the dick. They just can’t help it!
More than half of America did not vote for this. Stop making stuff up.
People who don’t vote are part of the problem. That’s how democracy works. I know, ‘muricans struggle to understand this concept.
77m voted for Trump which is 32% of the voting age population.
As a percentage of the overall population it is ~23%.
It was under 49% of under 66%, or 32%, tops who voted for this. Still heinous, but I suppose that doesn’t fit the narrative of “most Americans are terrible!”
By your logic, Europeans 100% don’t have any issue with what America does because they fall in line and do America’s bidding most of the time. Otherwise, they would have effectively changed their government(s) to one(s) that do not go along to get along, instead of just complaining online, right?
Sure. Just ignore what Germany does, because their Chancellor is a dipshit, too. Now tell me again what Spain did recently? Seems like you forgot that majority of Europe does NOT play along
I wish none of them would play along. But I don’t vilify every citizen of the countries that do.
Yep, and what said the Nazi in court, when he was asked why he killed hundrets of Jews? “I just followed my orders”.
Guilty as fuck, so is every single service member or government employee.
Says guy online, also doing nothing to physically stop the world’s largest military or assassinate that nation’s horrible leaders.
Why should I? You are aware, that there are people living outside the borders of the US? And they all give zero fucks.
Clean your own mess.
“We are a powerful nation, so we can do nothing to stop this.”
Impeccable.
Oh fuck off. You know what would have been a real easy way to stop these cunts? If fucking American dipshits had gotten off of their fat fucking arses and voted against him. The American people are solely to blame for these arseholes, nobody else. Own it.
I could literally give zero fucks about an Iranian/Russian/ us/French/ Canadian war ship. I hope all the warships from every country kill each other. But please bring Petey with you.
Its crazy how the whole world is to much of a pussy to do anything to the US.
Almost as crazy as how US citizens are too much pussies to even vote, let alone do something about it. Also up there with whining about others not taking care of US citizens responsibilities.
I very much agree as well. I’m not defending the US but it is what it is. If everyone is to pussy to do anything about it then it will continue and there’s no reason to complain.
The US has the single most powerful military force in the world. So when a deranged orange psychopath who has the ego of a cracked eggshell has access to the nuclear football that can call upon the destruction of life as we know it, you’d be careful too.
Thankfully, we’re currently reaching the offense side of the pendulum, where defenses haven’t caught up yet and made a stalemate. The $20,000 drones that are being used are going to overwhelm the $4,000,000 missiles used to stop them.
Perhaps america will get just enough of a kick in the teeth for our government to reel itself in and take care of our war criminals and profiteers… /cue_maniacal_laughter at that thought ever actually happening.
Okay you maybe right however if no one won’t do anything about it then don’t bitch about it.
What exactly do you think I should be doing?
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
