The US has been the main villain ever since they inherited the role from the British. None of this is surprising if you've been paying attention.
The 40k universe is clearly inspired by real-world politics. There are only bad guys, villains, and monsters. Nobody has the moral high ground in this mess.
Centrist, politically relativist nerds unite; incidentally, relativism is a useful cope if you are one of the baddies.
We bombed only seven hospitals, whereas those guys bombed eight. They are clearly the worst, while we are the good guys, relatively speaking.
I hate this comment.
The only one thinking the US are the good guys it's the US.
As of right now, you're no better... scratch that, you are actually worse than Putin.
Now that the United States is trying to do a Russian Ukraine upon Iran...
yyyyeah there is no moral highground anymore.
just an immoral crater filled with mud and viscera.
No state is moral. People are (or can be) moral.
honestly TRUUUUUUE!!
This is the case with pretty much all collective entities, they're all cut from the same cloth:
businesses, sports teams, fandoms, private clubs, political parties - they're all manifestations of tribal instinct and one of its """features""" (which, in this very synthetic habitat we've created for ourselves can become quite maladaptive if not toxic) is the displacement of personal accountability.
I'm saying, yes, groups are not moral but people can be moral - and I am hypothesizing THAT is why.
Parallel processing has enabled humans to do absolutely incredible things.
But it has also enabled humans to do truly heinous things too.
Bystander effect, "just following orders", toeing the party line, passing the buck, riding the bandwagon... I think it's not enough to teach people that only people themselves are capable of making moral judgments, but that we absolutely should also teach people that abstract gestalt entities that we become part of, that we allow to subsume us, are not.
Even the ones that aren't outright evil are only so by the individual decisions of the people it comprises--through either luck or mindfulness--steering it away from brutal shortcuts that spend others' lives for the sake of its own perpetuation.
It's kind of ironic though that the people who decry "groupthink" the loudest are the ones that seem to be doing it the most. I'd sure like to think that we'll learn to do a better job of identifying that blindspot (which such distributed collective entities exploit to enhance their own survival odds) and countering it, then teaching the next generations to look for it and counter it too.
... if we'll even be around to see any generations that may exist after us.
The USA is bad but it's nowhere near russian level of bad. You are, however, moving in that direction at a rapid pace. It does help that American president sees russia as a role model.
Trying to paint either nation as "less bad" is incredibly naive. Both have murdered millions.
And the US has, this year, kidnapped a head of state, started a war and is also trying to starve another country. Not to mention how they are treating its own citizens and how are they giving all they need to Israhell so they can keep going with their genocide.
Oh I don't know. I think the Israelis are convinced they're the good guys.
America and Israel are the common enemies of humanity
Add Russia to that
I don't claim that know who the good guys are, but the US and specifically the military are definitely the baddies.
I disagree with you only on one point; "and specifically the military".
Apologies for being blunt, but this is a coward's logic. I'm not seeing that to attack you personally, but because far, far too many of us are guilty of this specific act of moral cowardice, and it needs to be called out now often.
A military acts on the will of a government. A government rules by the consent of the people (yes, even authoritarian governments; democracy is just a system for assigning that consent peacefully, fairly, and with minimal bloodshed).
With vanishingly few exceptions throughout history, militaries are not rogue agents acting on their own devices. They are our will made manifest. A soldier is a bullet fired from a gun. We take aim and pull the trigger. A soldier can do their best to act ethically and responsibly, but ultimately war is a scenario where no good outcomes can ever occur. Only degrees of terrible.
A soldier chooses to accept the responsibility of living and enacting that terror on our behalf because ultimately someone has to. War is sometimes inevitable and necessary. We do not categorically refer to the soldiers fighting for Ukraine's defence as monsters even though most of them - especially those serving before the war, those whose bravery and skill ground the Russian invasion to a halt in those vital early hours - serve for the same panoply of reasons that any other soldier does. Many of those reasons are simple, or selfish, or thoughtless, but the reasons why they chose to shoulder that responsibility didn't change the outcome.
It's easy to blame the military, because it abrogates the collective shame of what war actually is; an extension of politics. I know plenty of soldiers who are some of the most anti-war people you'll ever meet, because they understand what war costs, in a way the average civilian never will.
When war kills people, when war results in atrocities, when war is a nightmare of death and carnage and suffering, that responsibility is collective. It belongs to a people, not just a military.
Trump's war in Iran is America's war in Iran. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea, and so many others.
Hegseth and trump playing with lethal toys like a sociopath torturing animals.
A non-hostile ship being targeted because “Just do it and see what happens. “

I want to put this very recognizable meme on lawn signs (like the plastic political candidate ones) and hand them out and put them everywhere.
Mark my words, by the end of Trump's term the United States is going to have no allies left in the entire world.
Hell, we barely have any left as it is now.
comment Africa comment in articles in the WSJ saying the US has only "fair weather allies" and it's good they show how useless they are now so the US can discard them.
exactly 0 self awareness.
It was a war ship therefore a valid target
I don't get why the article keeps saying the military frigate was "unarmed"?
It was on a training mission and was heading home. With no weapons on board. We are cowards.
This entire war is illegal, but articles like this just grind my gears.
Attacking a war ship on a training run is like destroying airplanes on the ground, or bombing infantry barracks where soldiers are sleeping. It isn't a war crime, or even out of the ordinary in a war.
And calling the sub crew cowards doesn't even make sense.
The frigate would have been just as helpless against the sub if it had been carrying its usual armament.
I guess I'm just allergic to dishonest propaganda, no matter from which side.
Also, fuck Trump, his administration, and every single US service member going along with this. I hope they get humiliated and are forced to pull out with their tails between their legs before they "accidentally" kill more school children, or deliberately destroy Iran's civilian infrastructure (an actual war crime).
You are in serious need of education. This was an international naval exercise, where participants show up unarmed to not endanger any other participants and as a show of good will. This is basically a diplomatic gesture. Attacking such a ship is among the most cowardly things any military can do. So exactly what you would expect from the cowards of Magastan.
Let's put aside the stupidity of the idea that they should have allowed it to re-arm first and risk US lives for no reason.
The training mission had a live fire component, so the ship was definitely armed during a portion of the excersise. Unless they ran out of ammo or something weird happened, it was armed.
As a precondition of its participation in the fleet review and the Milan 2026 exercises in India, the IRIS Dena was unarmed.
From the actual article. Which you could have read. It's not even paywalled, you just didn't want to take the time.
Oh of course, the manly thing to do would be to wait for it get back to port get munitions and then shoot it
If it was unarmed they could have effortlessly captured it. Imo this is just going to crystallize US opposition.
The US has rarely been "the good guys", and even then mostly by accident.
Unfortunately what is allowed in war is still pretty brutal. This was a warship and it would be a legitimate target from the moment the war started, without exception.
Let's focus on the actual war crimes, like the Pentagon redefining "military target" to include destroying energy, food, and fresh water infrastructure because soldiers need to drink water too... Hitting those targets would still be a war crime, the Pentagon is not the arbiter of what is and isn't a military target.
I don't see where it's clarified that the ship was unarmed or if that would make it somehow not a military target? It's not a civilian ship, it's a military vessel.
Call me crazy, but in a race of most-illegal, attacking a legal target in an illegal war seems like a pretty low hanging fruit. A lot of making something out of nothing vibe when there's plenty of somethings to actually talk about.
Again, assuming I didn't miss where it's outlined that this isn't the case, but a WARship being attacked by another WARship (submarine if there's a technical difference but that's not my point) in a WAR just doesn't seem like an ethical dilemma beyond the shitty reasons for the illegal war in the first place.
I can tell you didn't read the article.
The IRIS Dena was taking part in an international fleet review in the Bay of Bengal. Comprised of seventy-five foreign delegations, including the United States, Germany, Japan, and Australia. The theme of the joint exercise: “United by Oceans.”
As a precondition of its participation in the fleet review and the Milan 2026 exercises in India, the IRIS Dena was unarmed. When it met what Secretary Hegseth boastfully called its “quiet death,” the IRIS Dena was essentially an off-duty vessel, traveling home from a ceremonial voyage on ocean waters that were declared, in 1971 by the UN General Assembly, a zone of peace.
The United States knew the IRIS Dena was unarmed, and it knew its approximate whereabouts, as it participated in the same exercise.
The same Los Angeles–class nuclear-powered attack submarine that sank the Dena, the USS Charlotte, had participated in the same Fleet review. They knew it was unarmed. They followed the unarmed ship from the international unity review, and then sank the vessel in open water, 2000 miles from the illegal war being waged by drumpf and his pedophile allies.
This is just another war crime in a multitude of them. Every single person in this administration should hang.
Even if it's not technically a war crime, it's still disgusting. An unarmed ship heading home from a diplomatic exercise, that they knew was unarmed, and they torpedoed it for PR. They could have simply forced it to surrender with no danger to the submarine, but they wanted an epic torpedo video for trump to watch and clap at.
In any case, I wish death on all the yankee devils
While the war in Iran should not be happening remember that at Rimpac they were doing live fire excercises and not US and Iranian ships attended, this means that while tragic the ship was not unarmed. I keep seeing some factual errors repeated to try and make things sound worse than they are leading to easy dismissal of arguments due to factual errors and complete dismissal of the point.
The US have never been 'the good guys'.
We are. Because we say so. Now the other guy, wooboy what a bad guy!
...Is there an implication of the broken legs I'm missing?
Wikipedia has a video of the blast. Imagine standing on deck when the torpedo exploded and you'll understand why there were broken legs.
Oh, I understand why, I was wondering if pointing it out was supposed to imply something else I wasn't getting.
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.