Weasel, victim, cheerleader, and implied coward.

You say that I am a "weasel," a "cheerleader," a "victim" and someone who was not up to serving in the military and thus an implied coward.  That's name calling, right?  Prohibited by the rules of this site, true?  Beyond that, tossing off these epithets constitute ad hominem argument that is fundamentally weak and a classic fallacy.

Combat  

You argument basically is:  (1) You served, implying combat experience, and (2) I did not serve, and (3) thus I have no standing to legitimately comment on military issues and thus am a "weasel" for trying to do so.   Let's look at this.  First, you imply you have combat experience, true?  I will concede you have combat experience, although I will note you don't talk like many combat veterans.  Second, true, I have no combat experience, nor did I imply that I did.  Third, because I have no combat experience, you basically argue I have no valid basis of commenting on military issues outside of combat.  Well, that really makes sense, no?

The issue that was being discussed was not how people react during combat, or whether we should go to war, or how to wage a war, or the strategy and tactics of war.  The issue was the character of military people in a civilian context.  I said that military veterans are generally reliable and honorable in my experience.  And, you then use your alleged combat experience to tell me that not only am I wrong that veterans are generally reliable and honorable,  but that I am also a "weasel" because I did not serve in combat but still had the temerity to say veterans are generally good guys.

I submit that my experience with veterans in a civilian context is every bit as valid yours might be.

Your response is a familiar one.  But you invoke it, however, in an atypical context.  You trot out the standard "chicken hawk" argument: That because one has not served, it is difficult for them to really know about combat or have true standing to say whether we should go to war.  But I was not advocating war, or any particular battlefield tactic or theater strategy.   I was saying vets on the whole are good guys, and you respond with the "chicken hawk" argument.....It doesn't work in this context.

It appears that you really did not have much to say, but pulled on oldie but goodie argument off the shelf, and deployed it here, whether it applied or not.  Not a lot of thinking behind that argument.  Just kneejerk response.

Dadler's thesis about military veterans.

Where this argument began, before you would jump in with your "chicken hawk" argument, was Dadler's comment that military veterans are unimaginative, authoritarian, etc.  This is the second time he has said this here.  It is a typical view of the Left, at least in the past, towards the military.  I did react to his comment by saying veterans are generally good guys in my experience.  Dadler's original comment is a trite, hackneyed trope that is a lazy and unimaginative crutch.  But not that big a deal, as trotting out unthinking stereotyopes happens to everyone.  I did want to counter that image.

And you jump in, vested in using your combat experience to say that my comments are wrong.  Stupid argument.  You miss the entire point.