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 21 hours ago21 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 17 hours ago17 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.

11 hours ago, FourFans said:

Sounds like you were a C-17 dude who touched down a couple times in Bagram. Or maybe an AWACS back seater.

Sounds like you sat on the wrong uncle's lap or tortured too many house pets as a child and now struggle to escape the distortions of your own psychodrama. Do you hear your own theme music when you walk from your pontiac to the commissary door? Do you have nightmares about track select and wake up clutching your big blue wooby?

Devaluing the service of a fellow veteran to enhance your own sense of worth is desperado territory. And if you need me to agree with you to feel better about yourself, then you don't even believe what you're saying. Maybe because you know deep down, in places you don't talk about at post-midnight interstate rest stop parties, you know it doesn't deserve belief.

I know I argued it's best to prioritize substance over source. But once a source proves they have no substance, ignoring them becomes a useful shortcut. Something tells me you get ignored a lot, so maybe this will help you get why.

Granted a lot of time passed between my visits to this place, but I can't stop being astonished at the sheer enshittification of dialogue. There used to be more balance. Defining oneself by MDS used to get someone kicked in the pills so hard their dead grandpa's wingman would cry out from the grave in pain. Now it's, like, what the cool kids do.

It's normal to define yourself by residual inadequacy when you're young and still figuring things out. To still be engaging in popping your polo collar at this stage of life suggests a deeper vein of psychic sludge.

Good luck with it, we're all counting on you.

16 hours ago, FourFans said:

Sounds like you were a C-17 dude who touched down a couple times in Bagram. Or maybe an AWACS back seater.

Believe Moose has previously identified himself on this board (view post history). Although the change in tone from ~10 years ago and this kind of writing below make me wonder if his account was hijacked, or maybe he wasn't who he said he was initially.

4 hours ago, Moose said:

Sounds like you sat on the wrong uncle's lap or tortured too many house pets as a child and now struggle to escape the distortions of your own psychodrama. Do you hear your own theme music when you walk from your pontiac to the commissary door? Do you have nightmares about track select and wake up clutching your big blue wooby?

Edited 5 hours ago5 hr by Blue

As interesting as it is to conceptually debate whether war crimes should even exist as a category (Jesus Christ guys) I’d like to circle us back to the thread topic of Iran.

We’re now on our 3rd or maybe 4th iteration of: threaten total obliteration->back off the threat->promise a super stupendous deal is right around the corner. Apparently this time the Saudis, Emiratis, and Qataris asked us to postpone so it totally wasn’t a taco (although it is hilarious these ultimatums keep coming due on tuesdays.) So I guess now our force posture is.. ready to exact total obliteration but also eagerly awaiting a perfect, amazing deal. I’m sure this new status quo will last literal dozens of hours.

Honest question: is there a point here where we just be honest with ourselves and admit we’re being fucked with?

I'm not so sure that needs to be admitted. Trump has said publicly that he thinks the Iranians are just screwing around.

The only way to "win" is to get us to give up. And I think they're looking at the last 30 years of American conflict and hoping that the American people are going to get bored of this, and eventually the administration will be pressured into giving up. So the name of the game is stalling.

I actually think the administration figured this out a while ago, which is why we aren't dropping bombs right now, despite Trump's penchant for blustery language. A blockade is boring and cheap, as far as the court of public opinion is concerned. It's also devastating to Iran. And Europe, and Asia, if this thing continues through June.

But no one's going to get shot down during a blockade, Iran is obviously out of any meaningful number of drones or TBMs, and so there's nothing particularly newsworthy about what's going on now. Gas prices are up, but not to the point that we're seeing any sort of major disruptions in the economy. And Trump has the ultimate lever on gas prices, so if things do get out of hand he can bring them down (in the US) instantly and persistently.

So... We wait. I think it is notable that the administration was telling the Iranian people not to protest or leave their homes throughout the first month of the campaign, and they have given no signal suggesting otherwise. I wonder if they're waiting for the economic situation to get so bad that the people are "primed" for another rebellion, this time with a greatly weakened IRGC.

10 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not so sure that needs to be admitted. Trump has said publicly that he thinks the Iranians are just screwing around.

The only way to "win" is to get us to give up. And I think they're looking at the last 30 years of American conflict and hoping that the American people are going to get bored of this, and eventually the administration will be pressured into giving up. So the name of the game is stalling.

I actually think the administration figured this out a while ago, which is why we aren't dropping bombs right now, despite Trump's penchant for blustery language. A blockade is boring and cheap, as far as the court of public opinion is concerned. It's also devastating to Iran. And Europe, and Asia, if this thing continues through June.

But no one's going to get shot down during a blockade, Iran is obviously out of any meaningful number of drones or TBMs, and so there's nothing particularly newsworthy about what's going on now. Gas prices are up, but not to the point that we're seeing any sort of major disruptions in the economy. And Trump has the ultimate lever on gas prices, so if things do get out of hand he can bring them down (in the US) instantly and persistently.

So... We wait. I think it is notable that the administration was telling the Iranian people not to protest or leave their homes throughout the first month of the campaign, and they have given no signal suggesting otherwise. I wonder if they're waiting for the economic situation to get so bad that the people are "primed" for another rebellion, this time with a greatly weakened IRGC.

I don’t think you’re far off here, just that the players are reversed. Someone is definitely stalling and it isn’t Trump. Trump has signaled he’s desperate for a deal (which is why he pinky promises we’re about to get one every other day) while Iran has either rejected negotiations entirely or countered with their own maximalist demands they know are complete non-starters. The narrative that they’re desperate and that time is somehow on our side doesn’t seem to be what Iran is betting on.. at all. They see Trump searching for off-ramps, flailing in his public messaging, midterms looming, approval ratings plummeting, all while energy and commodity prices across the west continue to spike.

I also think forcing Iran into more destitute conditions just enables a deeper IRGC crackdown and isn’t going to have the revolutionary effect many are hoping for.

Iran knows Hesgeth/Trump aren't going feet dry. Otherwise we would have done it already. Its now really a game of chicken, but we're not on a collision course. Its turned into a game of mean tweets. Israel is shaking its head, going WTF, but they got their useful idiot to perform a bombing campaign to further their goal to neutralize Iran.

This deal Trump wants is just figurative so he can say, "look what I did. I'm impressive. I want a ballroom. And a statue of me with Epstein in the ballroom, where we hold each other while we diddle each other. Melania, film that. Oh, I need my IRS guy to exempt me from taxes. Where's my US Supreme Court? I need some ball licking. Pam, get in here... wait, damn, I fired her boobs. Or his boobs. No wait, those were Noem's BOOBS. Such bigguns.

PS. No TDS's were harmed in this production. Yet.

Mike Mike Mike... Hump day!!!

PPS. That is what rando thought Trump does at 3am every night.

5 hours ago, Blue said:

Believe Moose has previously identified himself on this board (view post history). Although the change in tone from ~10 years ago and this kind of writing below make me wonder if his account was hijacked, or maybe he wasn't who he said he was initially.

Changes in tone are natural and expected in the fullness of time. Organisms that don't adapt to a changing environment become too dissimilar from that environment to extract organic essentials and survive. They die. So yes, in the decade of enshittification preceding this latest war of choice, my tone has become more serrated.

That doesn't make me an impostor. Nor does it supply the foundation for suggesting I was dishonest in the first place.

I'll agree I could have been more constructive in some of my previous comments.

But let's not get excited about painting "f***" on an airplane that is dropping napalm on thatched hut villages. We're discussing war crimes, jus ad bellum, and other profound subjects. None of us is dismounting a Higgins Boat. So maybe we can thicken up enough to punch and counterpunch enough to break through the patina and learn something.

Edited 34 minutes ago34 min by Moose