FormerRecruitingGuru
Making Recruiting Great Again
If I was in Millington in the Tank... I would Press 100 this statement. ?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Navy Reserve COVID Vaccinations by October
- Thread starter snake020
- Start date
If I was in Millington in the Tank... I would Press 100 this statement. ?
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.
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.
I'd also point out that the militias back in the day were not seeking independence from a geographically different country. This was part of the UK, and had been for generations. They are only viewed as part of the road to freedom because they won and wrote the history. Otherwise they would have been described as part of a traitorous rebellion that the king rightfully put down. Hell, many contemporaries fought in militias for the King! As they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Yes, history is written by the winner- no surprise there.
That antifa and NFAC call themselves a "militia" only magnifies the negative connotation of the term.
Interestingly, one of the definitions of militia is: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency." e.g. a force that supplements the government's army in time of need.
Another definition is: "a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army." e.g. polar opposite of what's defined above.
The final definition I've found is: "all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service." There's some food for thought.
It would seem the label of "militia" leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to assessing a group's intentions, although it tends to connote an extreme view. The Founding Fathers' use of the term as an alternative to a standing army has already been discussed in this thread.
That antifa and NFAC call themselves a "militia" only magnifies the negative connotation of the term.
Interestingly, one of the definitions of militia is: "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency." e.g. a force that supplements the government's army in time of need.
Another definition is: "a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army." e.g. polar opposite of what's defined above.
The final definition I've found is: "all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service." There's some food for thought.
It would seem the label of "militia" leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to assessing a group's intentions, although it tends to connote an extreme view. The Founding Fathers' use of the term as an alternative to a standing army has already been discussed in this thread.
Last edited:
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.
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. ?
Awesome, thanks!
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.
Oh, page 60. I’ll be sure to only respond to the topics you approve of in the future. Appreciate the heads up.
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.
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.
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.
And we aren't even deterring them from attacking us, but our allies. 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. Doubt the framers would approve.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not saying NATO is bad, that we shouldn't have allies, or that we shouldn't protect those allies. Far from it. 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. The idea that we should fear a powerful German military today is absurd, despite history (which modern Germans are extremely ashamed of), and the fact that it is primarily their defense that is in question is all the more reason they should be shouldering at least their share of the burden. The US has not had a need for a military the size of ours since the Cold War.. not when we have the allies we have.
Lastly, I'll add that our allies hardly face an enemy larger or more powerful than them (nukes excluded). The Germans have a bigger economy than Russia, let alone the collective EU economy (which itself has defensive guarantees). I hardly think our trade with them justifies allowing them to pour billions into their largest threats economy while they ignore their own defense as we provide for it.
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.
But I'm OK with them (NATO) carrying more of the load too.
It's tough being the leader of the free world, but it beats leaving a leadership vacuum.
Finland's military is oriented to defend their homeland against one threat, period. Norway's and Sweden's militaries as well that historically had a similar structure and still retain large parts of it like Sweden's Home Guard, but again they are oriented against one big threat. And while conscription is still in force in Finland it only intakes a small portion of the eligible population every year. But that isn't the threat we face today, like we did 230 years ago when the Constitution was written, and so whatever the framers intent their ideas on defense are very outdated.
We are not even close to the sole guarantors of the collective defense of NATO. Even though some European countries have neglected their defense budgets the last 30 years they still constitute the bulk of NATO's combat forces in Europe that would face an enemy like Russia, especially with our post-Cold War drawdown in Europe.