• driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    The americans knew the ship was coming for a military exercise without ammunition, they couldn’t just seize it and captured everyone and got the ship? I’m missing something?

    • Typhoon@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      9 hours ago

      They could’ve done that with Venezuela’s “drug boats” too but didn’t. That’s because the goal was actually to kill people.

    • Infinite@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      10 hours ago

      You assume they wanted the ship or prisoners more than the death and suffering

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      First principles: Even assuming they somehow magically knew there really were no smallarms on the ship, why take the risk of getting stabbed or beaten with a pipe or trapping you and starting a fire or whatever. It would be another thing if the ship surrendered, but no reason to put yourself and your fellow soldiers at risk to go easy on your enemy.

      Deeper reason: With long range missiles and drones being the primary threat to a ship, the biggest limitations are actually locating the enemy ship, tracking it and guiding the missile/drones towards it. Even a ship with no ammo can do that by relaying your position to another ship or shore based missiles/drones. So pulling your ship right next to an enemy one and having to stay there while your marines go board it is not a safe thing to do.

      • ForestGreenGhost@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Capturing a vessel is very different than performing a boarding action. If the U.S. captured the Iranian vessel then there wouldn’t be any risk of “getting beaten with a pipe” because the Iranian vessel surrendered.

        Deeper Dumber reason: Given the state of technology today and with all of the jamming, electronic warfare tech, and counter drone and missile stuff that the U.S. Navy has, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference whether the Iranian vessel was right next to a U.S. warship or not.

        Edit: lol at getting beaten with a pipe. Jesus fucking Christ. Get off of LLMs, they’re clearly ruining your ability to reason

        • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          17
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Putting aside your other bullshit, you answered the question yourself then. They did not capture it because it did not surrender.

          • ForestGreenGhost@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 hours ago

            In a warfighting context, to capture an enemy vessel or position means you coerced them to surrender with overwhelming firepower or threat of force. Also is semantics the only counterargument you have?

            Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.

            • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              42 minutes ago

              who were not at war

              And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?

              Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.

              WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.

              I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and it’s pedophile president, this really isn’t one of them.

      • imrighthere@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        I’m curious, what excuses will you make for the nazis when they’re dragging you out of your house ?

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Lot of gymnastics here. This is pretty simple: do not move your unarmed warship through international waters so you can arm it and join an active conflict while your aggressor is literally right next to you.

      The Iranian admiral who ordered this ship to sail is an idiot and this ship was fair game.

      • stylusmobilus@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Gymnastics my arse. It was an attack on an unarmed ship.

        During a war these grubs can’t justify. Maggots they are.

        • MrSpArkle@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          An unarmed what? What kind of ship was it? Headed to where? To be armed to with what? To do what?

          The war is not justifiable. But given the context that frigate was done the moment it sailed.

          • stylusmobilus@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            20 minutes ago

            An unarmed what

            Ship, with human lives on it

            What kind…

            Unarmed. Vulnerable.

            Headed to where

            Home port which still doesn’t justify sinking an unarmed ship

            To be armed…

            To do what

            Then it might be fair game if this war was legitimate but it isn’t. It was only done the moment it sailed because Americans are war criminals and the bad guys.

      • Maeve@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        This is who we always were. Real time media for events out of sight and earshot is relatively new. And that’s partly why they want to heavily censor and spy on us.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Yes, Putin probably enjoys this, but this is not trump alone. He has the support of the whole republican party, or at least 95% of it.

          • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 hours ago

            He has support of the US. They voted for him and for his ‘opposition’ of cowards that can do nothing but watch cry crocodile tears.

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            12 hours ago

            I agree it’s not but like AIPAC I don’t think it’s a stretch that the broader cartel that is the GOP realizes their reelection hinges on the bilateral relationship with Russia. They’ve been in cahoots for at least 2 decades or more.

        • Lumisal@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Well don’t think he’s that happy since his supply of drones most likely has dried up

          • lennybird@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 hours ago

            If I understand right, ruzzia has long since started to develop and innovate domestically upon the design of Shaheds, and I don’t think they were receiving that many relative to domestic production, though I agree it’s a thorn in Putin’s side presumably.

            Though I have some other theories as to the bigger game being played here but just theories and speculation.

            • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              make sense why the right wing talking heads hes paying isnt spreading anti-iran propaganda, he mostly certain is trying to formulate a way to discredit the war, but hasnt yet.

    • chellomere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      40
      ·
      12 hours ago

      There is no carpet bombing of Tehran. This person is thus not a reputable source and you need to start doubting the rest of the claims until you find a better source.

      • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Well Russia didn’t do it because they don’t have the “fuck you” power that the US has. Russia sucks and is a huge danger, but this is absolutely not the time to whataboutism about them. I really hope you’re being ironic, because otherwise it’s just providing cover for mass murder.

        • Tja@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I mean… there can be two murderous ruthless sadistic powers on earth. Three even! I’ll let you choose the third.

              • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                China is bad, but it’s it worse than the these to 3. I doubt it.

                The west considers it worst since

                1. It’s not an European or white nation, which is technologically advanced.
                2. It’s daring to reject European interference.
                3. It is communist.
                4. It is trying to be the next hegemony.

                It is bad because

                1. It is a dictatorship
                2. There are a lot of human rights abuse happening in is own country.
                3. It does try to be the next USSR.
          • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            9 hours ago

            And whataboutisms do not help either case. They just muddy the water and derail the conversation. If you want to talk about Russia or China, the US fighting this awful war only helps other competing empires. Russia is more likely to carve further into Europe, China is more guaranteed to take Taiwan, and other countries will race towards nuclear deterrents even harder then they were. Many more people are dead and will die because of this path America has driven us into. It is horrific and America needs to be stopped to make everyone safer.

            • Tja@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              It’s not whataboutism, it’s condemning both and NOT letting the existence of other justify the actions of one.

              • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 hour ago

                That’s not the way it comes across. It was just as annoying when people did the “what about American imperialism!” when Russia first invaded Ukraine. Timing matters

      • flandish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        13 hours ago

        “russia would do” - when you say that to yourself remember that phrase is propaganda. it’s literally some shit the USA did do. Your “IDK” is cognitive dissonance.

          • xxam925@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 hours ago

            Russia was never relevant. The USSR failed.

            It was empire

            Then feudalism

            Then the advent of the ruling of the mercantile class.

            Next will be rule by the people.

          • njm1314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Lol. We aren’t the new Russia. We’re just continuing to be the same war crime committing monsters we’ve been for centuries.

  • BC_viper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    This is just the start. The old world broke once russia invaded Ukraine and we did nothing. Now other countries have realized that the world wont do anything if they also attack. Expansion has once again started. I expect Taiwan to be finished by summer too.

    • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 hours ago

      What old world? The US committing war crimes is par for the course. This is the same kind of shit the US did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and more. The cruelty is the point. The difference now is that the current administration is too stupid to lie about it.

    • AMoralNihilist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      13 hours ago

      The old world broke when the US and UK invaded Iraq illegally in 2003. This is the natural consequence of that. If the people claiming to uphold them don’t follow the rules because they are strong enough, then if we are strong enough we can do anything we want.

      • Theoriginalthon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        I know the UK went along with the Iraq war but remember it was the US that lied and convinced the UK to join in, not that it matters too much, but still.

    • paraphrand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      I get this vibe that no one knows what’s going on anymore and everything is just running on the fumes of the zeitgeist and conspiracy theories.

      I find the fact that the whole world “knows” that China will invade Taiwan in 2027 to be really strange. And this has been the case for years. It feels like certain groups are taking it as a foregone conclusion.

      • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        Because in a sea of massive uncertainty and chaos that’s around us today, China invading Taiwan in the middle of this makes the most sense out of anything that’s happening right now. It makes so much sense, that everyone has collectively realized it would be stupid for China not to invade Taiwan right now.

        I mean, it’s really, really bad for the world, but it would be stupid if they didn’t do it and take advantage of what’s happening everywhere.

        • ptu@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          China taking Taiwan makes zero sense. It’s a peaceful island next to gigantic mainland China and they can easily coexist like this

          • plyth@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            China has no deep sea submarine ports.

            But it doesn’t make sense to take Taiwan because it would trigger the war that those ports could prevent by allowing China nuclear retaliation.

            I think they prepare to take Taiwan, and Japan, for when the US start the conventional war that prevents a Chinese technological lead. They can’t let the US have airfields that close.

            • ptu@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              Any time. And they probably know that if they start warring against the peaceful island, the worlds perspective on them changes for good. Tibet was already bad, but they didn’t have the means to spread their message like today and China got away with it.

  • tidderuuf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    15 hours ago

    It’s weird how the US is turning into everything it fought against. Was fun while it lasted.

    • ☂️-@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      the us has always been like this.

      the monroe doctrine and overt colonialism have only been revived.

    • 3abas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      John McCain is celebrating wildly in Hell. Bombing Iran has been an American dream for decades!

    • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      7 hours ago

      This is the US and it always has been. The current administration is just stupider than previous ones. They don’t realize that hiding US war crimes served a purpose. They think bragging about their depravity will halt American decline. In reality, it will do the opposite as people like you lose faith in the inherent virtue of the American project.

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        current administration is just stupider

        Imagine that they are not. What if they figured that they can’t hide the crimes and that they are going to do so many that they have to get the population used to it. Trump is no mistake but a solution.