FormerRecruitingGuru
Making Recruiting Great Again
Hey, Brett’s being a pompous condescending tool again! I wonder why so many people left this site?
If I was in Millington in the Tank... I would Press 100 this statement. ?
Hey, Brett’s being a pompous condescending tool again! I wonder why so many people left this site?
That's odd, because I can't seem to post on here without you replying, at first debating the point I made, then when I try to debate you on the merits, you quickly throw some snarky, holier than thou nonsense and refuse to stay on topic. If you don't want to discuss issues here, then just don't post. Stop trolling and getting us off topic.I’m not interested in your points. Perhaps you’ll figure that out some day, but please do have an amazing weekend. ?
NFAC absolutely calls themselves a militia. Antifa doesn't to my knowledge, but they do things like create gun clubs and describe themselves as an “anti-fascist, anti-racist, pro-worker community defense organization”. Sounds pretty similar to how other militias describe themselves, just defending different groups/things. Agreed that they usually all give militias a bad name though.Although I find them repugnant (and ironic, in the case of "antifa"), as far as I know, those organizations don't claim the title "militia".
Either way, there are fringe groups giving the term "militia" a bad name with antisocial behavior and extremist positions. Looking overseas, the militia is often a local group that seeks to violently clash with an oppressive government and is, even more extreme, as they are not bound by any treaty or need for political viability. In our Founding Fathers' time, it was about seeking independence from Britain, a geographically-separate country, so militias were part of the road to freedom. Times were different.
Was speaking of the revolutionary militia. I believe contemporary militias SEE THEMSELVES as I described as well. I do not. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Others must have taken the incorrect reading you did.Isn’t it interesting that these so called militias are almost always associated with fringe right wing political movements that tend to clash with authorities at all levels, and frequently espouse the violent overthrow of the USG… and in what I’m sure is a complete coincidence, just happen to align themselves with all kinds of nasty white supremacy causes. That’s a very Pollyanna view of patriotism you’ve fashioned for yourself, Wink.
If you’ll recall, it was you who responded to my post to Wink. I look forward to a future filled with you following your own advice. ?If you don't want to discuss issues here, then just don't post. Stop trolling and getting us off topic.
Awesome, thanks!Was speaking of the revolutionary militia. I believe contemporary militias SEE THEMSELVES as I described as well. I do not. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Others must have taken the incorrect reading you did.
Page 60 man.. I replied to Recruiting guru and you inserted yourself into the recent convo about the constitution, replying to me. Then when challenged you came up with accusations instead of dealing with the topic, as usual. Nice try.If you’ll recall, it was you who responded to my post to Wink. I look forward to a future filled with you following your own advice. ?
Oh, page 60. I’ll be sure to only respond to the topics you approve of in the future. Appreciate the heads up.Page 60 man.. I replied to Recruiting guru and you inserted yourself into the recent convo about the constitution, replying to me. Then when challenged you came up with accusations instead of dealing with the topic, as usual. Nice try.
I’d argue that that model isn’t compatible with what our civilian leadership expects and tasks our modern military to do - especially so for Naval Aviation. Difficult to just surge a huge portion of your force when it’s time to deter our pacing adversaries.If the country had followed a course like Finland’s modern example, compulsory service for a year followed by reserves, we would be closer to the words in the Constitution and the intent behind it, I think. That, and downsize our standing military by a few orders of magnitude.
This is true, but I'd argue the problem is more with what the civilian leadership tasks than the model. The largest economies in the world are mostly alied with us, yet we are trying to carry the burden of deterring our adversaries mostly alone.I’d argue that that model isn’t compatible with what our civilian leadership expects and tasks our modern military to do - especially so for Naval Aviation. Difficult to just surge a huge portion of your force when it’s time to deter our pacing adversaries.
At least the Navy isn’t constitutionally restricted to the two year POM cycle. The framers were smart that way.I’d argue that that model isn’t compatible with what our civilian leadership expects and tasks our modern military to do - especially so for Naval Aviation. Difficult to just surge a huge portion of your force when it’s time to deter our pacing adversaries.
Is that all bad? For example, a massive rearmament of Germany might make some folks with knowledge of history a little nervous. We’ve BTDT.The largest economies in the world are mostly alied with us, yet we are trying to carry the burden of deterring our adversaries mostly alone.
You’re probably right.Doubt the framers would approve.
Or the economic interests we have in our allies from simple exports to technology sharing to investments made in those countries that would evaporate in a full blown war. I think that is reason enough to help allies defend themselves from larger and more powerful threats. And then, as @taxi1 said, there is the benefit of fighting the bad guys on someone else's turf. As to framers agreeing, some might not. But they did give the Senate the ability to enter into treaties, and we constitutionally have. NATO prevented almost unimaginable costs in life and money for all involved, including the Warsaw Pact. That was a good investment.The cynical side of my brain thinks this has more to do with congressional reps protecting the military industrial complexes in their states rather than anything more noble or necessary.
At least the Navy isn’t constitutionally restricted to the two year POM cycle. The framers were smart that way.
Is that all bad? For example, a massive rearmament of Germany might make some folks with knowledge of history a little nervous. We’ve BTDT.
Also, it’s their land that fight will occur on, and their civilians that will die in the war. Better to fight the hordes over there, across the ocean, than over here.
You’re probably right.
I think you both might have misinterpreted what my meaning was, no doubt because I wasn't clear enough.Or the economic interests we have in our allies from simple exports to technology sharing to investments made in those countries that would evaporate in a full blown war. I think that is reason enough to help allies defend themselves from larger and more powerful threats. And then, as @taxi1 said, there is the benefit of fighting the bad guys on someone else's turf. As to framers agreeing, some might not. But they did give the Senate the ability to enter into treaties, and we constitutionally have. NATO prevented almost unimaginable costs in life and money for all involved, including the Warsaw Pact. That was a good investment.
No, I got you, and agree with your points. Just offering some counter-thoughts on why us paying more isn't necessarily that bad. When we pay for defense, we mostly pay ourselves, and if it costs a bit more to tangle up Russia in Europe instead of having them get closer to us, that's not a bad thing either.As it has been, we've been nearly the sole guarantors of the collective defense, and that is simply an unfair burden to place on American tax payers.
If the country had followed a course like Finland’s modern example, compulsory service for a year followed by reserves, we would be closer to the words in the Constitution and the intent behind it, I think. That, and downsize our standing military by a few orders of magnitude.
But in an all for one and one for all alliance like NATO, all members should shoulder the burden of defense relatively equally. As it has been, we've been nearly the sole guarantors of the collective defense, and that is simply an unfair burden to place on American tax payers.