You’re using the New York Times to support the idea that the New York Times didn’t support the war.
What do you think could be an issue with using that evidence?
Nothing? It’s literally the primary source.
Did NYT support the war? Let’s look at the opinion pieces they published about the war.
I think the reason Zealandia is called a “submerged continent” is because it is made of continental crust rather than oceanic crust.
But IMO the best geologic definition of continents is by tectonic plates, which mostly matches up with the cultural definitions of the continents.
For the major continents, we have these plates:
There are several smaller plates too, like the Caribbean, Indian, and Arabian plates. IMO, we should consider these independent continents.
There is also a dedicated Pacific plate. The ring of fire is the border of this plate.
New Zealand / Zealandia is on the ring of fire. Half on the Australian plate, half on the Pacific plate. You can actually see the border of the two plates when you look at the topographical map of Zealandia.