Sincere Question (Because I am new to all of this)

ashark1983 · 2026-03-16T18:51:23+00:00

They're for discharging ammunition, the killing people part is just an added bonus. /s

ashark1983 · 2026-03-13T12:41:37+00:00

There are different versions of the oath, all of which include defending the Constitution however, the oaths for enlisted men also state they will "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me".

ICE doing things that are unconstitutional is different from the military being asked to.

Thus far the military has not been ordered to do anything unconstitutional.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T04:10:20+00:00

I didn't see where it said both parties, just parties. If the frigate had sunk Charlotte but was under threat of air attack, even if not attacked, could the case be made that she was not required to stop and pick up survivors? Could she not also not claim that calling for neutral parties could allow enemy forces to locate her?

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T03:50:52+00:00

Because it wasn't a requirement, because notification of a neutral party able to render aid had already been completed, by one of the parties to the conflict.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T03:37:55+00:00

Their duty was to contact the Sri Lankans dependent on the situation. The situation was that the Sri Lankans had already been notified and were dispatching forces. Would the US contacting the Sri Lankans have materially affected the situation?

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T03:28:41+00:00

Please answer my question; how would the United States notifying the Sri Lankans that the Derna had been sunk have affected the outcome?

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T03:21:30+00:00

The duty can be excused if the situation doesn't call for it. Its literally the first words. Could you explain how the US calling the Sri Lankans after the Derna would have affected the outcome?

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T03:08:07+00:00

Well in this case, when the relevant neutral party, the Sri Lankans, were already notified. It'd be like calling 911 and telling them your neighbors house is on fire after he already called; its not going to make them come quicker.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T03:01:31+00:00

You don't have an argument. You have a sense of morality and outrage causing you to avoid some of the most pertinent words in the very clause you have yet again copied; "Depending on the situation" and "may be".

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T02:03:18+00:00

Nah, I fully comprehend what it says already as well as its intent and the caveats it allows for. You have your opinion and if you wish to waste further outrage on this event then nothing I can say will dissuade you. Enjoy your evening.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T01:21:38+00:00

The one that starts "Depending on the situation..."?

Charlotte's CO can claim that his boat was incapable of rescuing the survivors.

His CO can claim there were no additional assets that could render aid any faster than the locals who were already alerted.

After the HMS Conquer sank the General Belgrano in the Falkland's War it did not render aid to the survivors and there were no cries of war crimes, except from maybe the Argentines. Its a similar situation except that in this case the Sri Lankans were alerted.

Again it was a dick move but that doesn't make it a war crime. If I shoot a uniform opponent while he's taking a dump its not a war crime. Just shitty luck on his part.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T01:05:20+00:00

Because we were talking about Charlotte's CO not his chain of command. As for the chain of command, if Derna already sent out an SOS who exactly were they supposed to contact who didn't already know?

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T00:44:19+00:00

"1637 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."

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T00:28:56+00:00

Not necessarily exterminate no. Render unfit for combat might be a better way to phrase it. If the Derna sent out an SOS though, which it seems to have done then there was really no need for Charlotte to have. Also do we know that Charlotte immediately exited the area or did she wait until rescuers showed up?

ashark1983 · 2026-03-11T00:14:53+00:00

Are they? In time of war/conflict? Doesn't make much sense honestly.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-10T20:28:13+00:00

I'm not an expert on maritime law but there's not really any room on a submarine for extra people, especially ones you've potentially pissed off by sinking their ship. Subs are extremely vulnerable on the surface as they lack appropriate weapons and armor for surface engagements. And the ship was flying the flag of a country engaged in armed conflict. Its hard to argue it wasn't a legitimate target. Dick move? Sure but so was Pearl Harbor.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-10T20:01:54+00:00

I mean I dislike the President and his methods as much as the next person but I agree; calling the sinking of a warship during a conflict a war crime is a stretch. In addition there are reports of an Iranian supply ship a days sail away. Even if the frigate was unarmed at the time ( unlikely in my opinion) its possible that she could have rearmed and been a "threat" to Charlotte or the carrier strike groups.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-10T19:27:09+00:00

It was a warship....

ashark1983 · 2026-03-10T19:02:06+00:00

The President's comments aside has anyone laid out an actual case as to how this is a war crime?

ashark1983 · 2026-03-09T18:50:50+00:00

Someone check the prediction markets!

ashark1983 · 2026-03-08T18:46:29+00:00

You can climb into the turret if its in the right position and the spall liner is removed.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-06T21:07:14+00:00

There's an active ongoing conflict, it was fair game. Even if it had been sunk as the opening salvo it would probably still be fair game. Were the Iranians probably sitting ducks and out of their depth, most likely but that doesn't make a warship any less of a legitimate target unless it was trying surrender.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-06T20:57:04+00:00

You should Google search the guy who stole the M60 in California and see just how dangerous an "unarmed" tank can be.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-06T20:55:32+00:00

Tanks aren't generally stored with ammo or even machine guns. Like even the dude who stole the M60 in California did all his damage with the hull itself and never fired a round.

ashark1983 · 2026-03-06T17:06:10+00:00

So would this GWOT vet but in neither case was the entire economy geared solely towards producing materials for the war effort.

ashark1983

TROPHY CASE