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 11 hours ago11 hr by FourFans

On 5/18/2026 at 6:28 AM, Moose said:

The international community is divided on whether Israel's actions in Gaza constitute genocide. But the fact scholars and institutions we built for the sole purpose of preventing genocide say those actions meet the legal definition means there is at least enough ambiguity to make an open-minded person less certain.

Indiscriminate bombardment of non-combatants and destruction of life-supporting infrastructure are what occurred. If you're cool with us supporting that, my question is simple: what evidence would change your mind? What would you need to see to reconsider your support?

Your use of indiscriminate here is at best willful ignorance, and at worst a self-serving lie. I suspect the latter.

On 5/18/2026 at 6:28 AM, Moose said:

US strategy isn't usually keyed to an orderly NSC principals process. It is keyed to Presidential statements. The entire Desert Storm plan and legislative proposal campaign was written based on GHWB's public statements. The first meeting came after we'd already briefed Congress. All to say Presidential rhetoric is taken as national policy. You can say you're not a Trump guy, but we all are. Which is the whole point. When he threatened genocide, you lost that argument until he retracts it or is no longer in charge.

Again, I'm shocked that you're aghast the Commander in Chief would direct the objectives of the armed forces, and then voice those out loud to his constituents. There's no we there in relation to Trump. Although, I see we've finally admitted there's an argument going on.

On 5/18/2026 at 6:28 AM, Moose said:

I said morality matters in war. You imply it does, but you define it subjectively. The closest we get to international morality is the expressed limitations of international law, which bind us in the treaties we sign or sometimes even if we don't sign. If one belligerent is adhering to the law and the other is not, you can credibly call one immoral. If both are derogating from the law, both are immoral, which makes morality irrelevant. When morality becomes irrelevant, it's anything goes, including genocide. Maybe you begin to see the circularity of your reasoning, or maybe not.

There's no circularity, other than the mental circle jerk one must go through to paint both Iran and US/Israel as immoral actors. You seem to think Israel's official or unofficial policy is to conduct terrorism, specifically target civilians, and wipe out a race of ppl. I know they both start with the letter "I" but I think you have Israel and Iran confused.

On 5/18/2026 at 6:28 AM, Moose said:

No one wants Iran to have a nuke. I'm with you there. But no one has argued this was about preventing Iran getting a nuke. The path to preventing is not to make Iran even more insecure.

If you think 93 million people are unified in a radical Islamist cult, you're not thinking at all. Be more curious. Ask more questions. Learn about Iran. Distinguish between radicals and the general population. Because the first step in genocide is what you just did -- lumping 93 million people together and demonizing them all. Next step, dehumanize. After that, gas chambers.

The path to preventing Iran from getting a nuke is direct intervention, which is what is occurring.

You're reading things I didn't type. I made specific references not to the Iranian people but to the leadership. I have a friend from Iran who still has family there, I'm well versed in the differences between the ppl and the immoral/evil cult in power.

On 5/18/2026 at 6:28 AM, Moose said:

Distinguish also between the Israeli State and the Jewish people. Opposing the actions of the former is not antisemitism. That kind of insinuation cheapens the term, which is one of many reasons 70% of Israelis don't trust their government and 55% disapprove of Netanyahu.

Check the name of the poster. I didn't say you were antisemitic. Although, white ppl that used HOAs to gentrify neighborhoods also claimed they weren't racist either so..

On 5/18/2026 at 6:28 AM, Moose said:

I'm not sure if you're trying to be ironic, but framing Iran as a hive of religious extremists before justifying current Israeli State action with reference to Isaac and Ishmael got a chuckle out of me.

You're missing the point intentionally or otherwise. Maybe Google who Isaac and Ishmael were and why the Jewish ppl have been under threat from Islamists since that time.

On 5/18/2026 at 6:28 AM, Moose said:

Aside from our twin penchants for slavery and child sexual abuse

Speak for yourself.

Edited 7 hours ago7 hr by Boomer6

10 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Speak for yourself.

I do speak for myself. Unfortunately, the president speaks for all of us. When he uses his power to shield child rapists, we all become complicit, because he has no power apart from that which we grant to him. When SecDef invites to the Pentagon someone who openly says slavery was cool, we all become complicit in that too. Bad news: we are no better than our enemies, and at our current rate of closure will turn them into the good guys very soon.

Direct intervention might prevent Iran getting a nuke, at least for now. But this isn't a single-move game. It's an infinite game. What helps now might work against us later. Or it might not even help us now. I'm struggling with why, if the case for this war was such a slam dunk, it didn't get made in the manner required by law. I'm struggling even more to understand why a bunch of USAF officers don't think laws are important.

If you can explain to me why we needed to conduct MCO to re-obliterate something we just obliterated, it would provide a theory at least as promising as us being captured by a foreign government, which is currently the leading theory. I think I asked it before, but I'll try again: what evidence would change your mind?

I needn't argue that both Iran and the USA are immoral nations. We've been proving that to ourselves and the world for a while now. But moral sufficiency isn't the reason to go war, and representative republics that don't fight to keep their voice in matters of war don't stay representative for long.

I'm not saying that applies to us. We haven't had representation for a long time. Elections are not about us or policies. They're about money and propaganda, which was again proven in yesterday's weaponized Kentucky primary.