We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.

By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.

What's the insult? You feel insulted that I said going along with Trumps notion that this somehow isn't a war is defending him?

You cannot seriously believe that what defines a war is your congress approval of it. So if Trump decides to bomb China. That's not Trump starting a war then? Because Congress didn't approve it?

if that's genuinly your belief, I'm lost for words.

You can start a war without a declaration of war. Sinking another country's warship is an act of war.

The only reason Trump isn't calling it a war (except for all the times he genuinly referred to it as "war") is because that would be impeachable and illegal under US law.

"Special combat operations" laughable. It's exactly what Russia claimed they're doing in Ukraine. "Oh we're not at war with Ukraine... it's just a special military operation".

you're an actual idiot if you think im defending the sinking of the ship. im not. the only thing i've said is that it isn't a war crime. and neither is what followed

you can think it's shitty, cowardly, reprehensable, disgusting, that's all fine. those are opinions. what isnt opinion is that it did not constitute a war crime.

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.

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.