My Vision For America

[a completely inoffensive name]

You would be the perfect tyrant to rebel against.

[Tellos Athenaios]

What's with the obsession of wasting people's best years on nonsense militaristic tripe?

[Vuk]

What's with the obsession of wasting people's best years on nonsense militaristic tripe?

Two years of their life Tellos. Two years that will be spent improve themselves physically and mentally, and teaching them skills that will translate over into tons of work-places. Most kids at that age are drinking, drugging, and having unsafe sex. Which do you think would be better for them?

[johnhughthom]

Two years of their life Tellos. Two years that will be spent improve themselves physically and mentally, and teaching them skills that will translate over into tons of work-places. Most kids at that age are drinking, drugging, and having unsafe sex. Which do you think would be better for them?

Choice?

[Vuk]

Choice?

You are talking about only two year of their life. Also, you are talking about a Citizen Militia which would not require the same, always on base or deployed time commitment that serving in the military proper or deployed National Guard would. It would be a Citizens Militia that would only be used to defend Wisconsin...not one that would be sent off to fight foreign wars.
You are right, they would not have a choice...just like they would not have a choice to pay their taxes. If you want the benefits of your roads, you need to pay taxes. If you want the benefit of being safe and secure, then you need to serve some time in the military. The way I see it, it is no different. You are just paying for what you are taking.

[johnhughthom]

Vuk, not everybody has a childhood like yours. I don't want to sound disrespectful toward your father, so I won't say how your childhood comes across when posted like that. I believe children should be allowed to be children, and forced military training most certainly does not come into that. I was in the Army Cadets for two years and enjoyed it. Had I been forced into it, I have no doubt I would have rebelled against it. As for the tax analogy, children in America pay taxes?

As others have mentioned, your get out of all military conflicts, whilst building up the military comes across as bizarre.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Two years of their life Tellos. Two years that will be spent improve themselves physically and mentally, and teaching them skills that will translate over into tons of work-places.

Obviously. I for one look forward to Best America, etc., etc.

Most kids at that age are drinking, drugging, and having unsafe sex. Which do you think would be better for them?

Drinking, drugging and unsafe sex vs. military service? You mean: trying out what it's like to be adult, vs. wasting years of your life on boring pointless idiocy?
There is a reason we no longer call upon the masses of unmotivated people who resent having their good time taken away and substituted by an even more boring version of highschool to render an uninspired service of no value whatsoever to the recipient.

Really, what good would it do your military to have to look after every idiot in America for two years, forever ?

[Husar]

I think what Vuk wants to achieve is cram every single American into the top 1%.

[Strike For The South]

More Beer

Less Clothes

[Papewaio]

More Beer

Less Clothes

Bondi?

[Devastatin Dave]

Vuk has my vote....
Not sure if that's considered a good thing...

[Vuk]

Vuk has my vote....
Not sure if that's considered a good thing...

Sweet, maybe I should start up a campaign!

@PJ: Give me a day or so to respond please. I have been up for the last 34 hours (had to pull an all-nighter) and need to get some sleep and pull my head together. :P

[Vuk]

Ah, educational. I have peered into your soul, Vuk, and I have seen the seeds of Rebellion! If you could be persuaded, then, that the current government is unsalvageable would you be opposed to violent revolution? Our fore-fathers demonstrated a willingness to lay down their lives for the betterment of future generations. Is that no longer viable? Is it inconceivable that we are already there?

These questions are not rhetorical. My views on the matter are well-known. I seek your views!

I don't believe that we are at a point where 'violent revolution' is needed, and I don't believe that we ever will be. (at least in the near future) Violent revolution is only necessary when other means of securing your freedom have been lost. (the ability to vote in fair elections, freedom of speech, etc) If those things were taken away, what do you have to lose by violent revolution? Not a lot, but a whole to gain.
As I said though, I don't think even a socialist like Obama would be stupid enough to think he could make himself a dictator. His own military and secret service would turn against him if he tried, so I don't think violent revolution will ever be necessary. (though having your leader aware that their people are capable and willing to if they try to strip them of their freedoms is no doubt what has stopped any attempt at dictatorship so far)
Of course I use the word dictatorship in a very inaccurate and loose way, to refer to a government that strips a people of their rights and takes total control...no matter what system of government. I honestly think that the thing America's should fear most is a socialist government that labels anyone who disagrees with them as a spreader of misinformation, and makes that a crime. So far Obama has taken the first step, but has not (and hopefully never will) take the next stop. When a President has that kind of power over thought and expression, then Americans will have lost all freedom.

Eh... some things would be good and some would not. Keep in mind that government subsidies to industry have been incredibly beneficial in America, particularly those given to the military industrial complex. We probably would not be conversing through this medium if the US government hadn't subsidized the research that underpins it. Don't let the current administration's cronyism in dealing with 'green' companies cloud your judgment.



The rationale for moving away from battle rifles to assault rifles has not changed. And bringing back the M14? There are much better options in .308 battle rifles.

While I disagree with you strongly on the issue of subsidies, I will simply disagree, as a discussion into that would require much more time that I am able to devote this close to finals.
As far as assault rifles are concerned though, I believe that the rationale for moving to them was flawed from the start. They needed and wanted to spend less money on ammunition, and tried to find a high-velocity round that would still be effective. Unfortunately the .223 is not .308. They also wanted to fill in the gap between sub-machine gun and full battle rifle, so that troops would have a sort of 'jack-of-all-trades'.
The problem is that the .223 round lacks the sufficient knock-down power of sub-machine guns (which generally are 9MM or 45; both significantly heavier than the .223), which is needed in close environments (the closer you get, the less time to react, and therefore the ability to kill with as few shots as possible and move to your next target is increasingly important).
They also lack the range and long-distance take-down power that the 30 cal weapons have.
A full-battle rifle would perform better in nearly every (if not every) situation. You cannot be pumping 3-5 rounds into your target before you move onto the next one. You should need 1-2 shots, and then move onto the next guy before he shoots you. Every Marine I have ever talked to, and most people from the Army who I have talked to about it all agree that they would prefer the M14 to the M4 or M16.
The truth is that assault rifles are a failed experiment. I will use a .223 if I want to hunt squirrels, but not if I want to hunt a deer. Why? Because I want the confidence of knowing that I can kill a large animal with 1 shot, not 3-5. Deer don't shoot back, but humans do. If I am having to pump a bunch of rounds into one guy to make sure he is dead, his buddy may just shoot me. As I said above, ARs would become kiddie training rifles, and when they turned 16, they would get a real gun.

Will there be mixed showering

lol, one of the things I want to avoid. There would be separate facilities, if not separate camps. Otherwise you would just be asking rape an harassment to flourish (the same objection I have to allowing gay and straight soldiers together). The last thing you want is to add extra stress to people by making them have to worry about things like that.

I disagree with you Vuk about military conscription. The US military is much superior than any European country, because we only take the best of the best of those that want to join. European countries dilute themselves down with anti-patriotism at home and conscription among the conscientious objectors.

I'm gonna quote a favorite author of mine that can explain this point perfectly.


You can't dispute this Vuk. You must give up your conscription fetish lest we become European.

I agree with you ACIN, which is why the regular military would remain volunteer only. However it is everyone's duty to defend their country and state should it come under attack. That is why everyone would need to serve in the militia. It is a last defense, not America's fighting force. The problem with Europeans is the quality of their citizenry (I agree with that author you posted...in fact I posted something similar a few months ago in a thread on European military incompetency). Wisconsin citizens would be of a much higher quality because of the new education program. The Wisconsin militia would probably out perform most European armies if my reforms happened.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree with you ACIN, which is why the regular military would remain volunteer only. However it is everyone's duty to defend their country and state should it come under attack. That is why everyone would need to serve in the militia. It is a last defense, not America's fighting force. The problem with Europeans is the quality of their citizenry (I agree with that author you posted...in fact I posted something similar a few months ago in a thread on European military incompetency). Wisconsin citizens would be of a much higher quality because of the new education program. The Wisconsin militia would probably out perform most European armies if my reforms happened.

Well, there goes my troll. The quote was you Vuk, I copy pasta'd. I'm done till my finals are over, see you guys in mid december!