8 hours ago, Moose said:

But everyone is eligible to care about it and discuss it. Better to judge the substance of an argument than get caught up in who is making it. Or worse yet, cultivate unwarranted doubt about their credibility to marginalize them and avoid contending with the substance altogether.

I agree with the first sentence. But, what I don’t agree with is you stating opinions on LOAC/ROE as fact, and then determining everyone who doesn’t agree with your opinion is bordering on genocidal/war criminals/slept through “LOAC class,” etc. That’s the only argument I’ve made towards you - and it’s a bingo, as Hans would say.

8 hours ago, Moose said:

Better to judge the substance of an argument than get caught up in who is making it.

Very true. The substance of your argument is purely theoretical and virtually useless in a real world sense. Sounds like you were a C-17 dude who touched down a couple times in Bagram. Or maybe an AWACS back seater. In any case, the substance of your argument reaches its useful limit at the door of the classroom where you heard it.

11 hours ago, Moose said:

We did all that in Vietnam and it went really well.

Speaking of classroom, sounds like you didn't study that war or it's implementation very well. Sober up, go read "Dereliction of Duty" by H.R. McMaster, then reassess. Not even close to absolute or total war.

While you're on that war, go read Flying Through Midnight...because every airman of our generation should read that.

Edited 3 minutes ago3 min by FourFans