• NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Sincerely, who gives a fuck about the legality of it? Would these people be happy if Congress had voted for it before they bombed brown people in the Middle East for the umpteenth time?

    • [deleted]@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      I would be less pissed off if a governing body made the decision instead of a wanna be dictator.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think the idea is that legality is supposed to approximate morality here, right? Like legal wars are supposed to be reasonably justified ones. Whether or not that actually works can be debated, but it is a relevant distinction

      • horn_e4_beaver@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think the idea is that legality is supposed to approximate morality here, right?

        I would argue it’s more to allow the proles to believe that they live in a world bound by (some) laws; so that it isn’t too obvious that they are subject to the whims of madmen.

  • Solumbran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    I mean, if you consider that there is a legal way to start a war, that’s already a problem.

    • AxExRx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean a war being legal doesnt make it moral, but, for the USA, the legal way was by an act of congress.

      The Hague convention III of 1907 formalized an international process (thats really just you have to declare war, both to the opposing forces and to all neutral parties in the area) that was basically what people had been doing for centuries.