Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oftentimes the government will maintain them to the benefit of private industry anyway, which is half the point (a form of economic stimulus if you will).

streamdragon wrote:
I'm sorry, I must be misunderstanding you. You want to force the "lazy and inept" into government positions, so you don't have to pay welfare?

And I'm not sure what you mean by "senatorial time", because your post reads like you'd do away with senatorial elections in favor of "conscripted" senators... (which would basically take our congress from "bad and inactive" like it is not, and put it down at the "Jerry Springer Show" level...)

What most of those on welfare really need is work.. If you are paying salary, that means that someone is making a contribution to society (whether it is valuable or not is debatable) and the more salaries you are paying, the fewer welfare recipients there are, in general.

My thoughts on the "senatorial time" is that, one problem with American politics, is the so called "career politicians".. guys and gals have gone to school, or spent their 4 years military, then gone and spent 30 in Washington, I think that because of people like that, combined with other things have created a system where nothing really gets done. To solve that, I suggest that there be a cap on one's time in Washington, just like we do the Pres. Were it up to me to create a "conscripted senate" as you think, I definitely wouldn't take most of America. However, just like the military scores you as a person in several categories through the ASVAB, I think that, should a person be allowed to defer their fictitious "conscripted government service" til after college (just as we do with selective services and the draft), we could then create a pool from each state and locality of qualified people to serve in either the senates or house of representatives.. those people would then have the option to either be put on a voting ballot, or serve elsewhere within the system. This way you don't, or at least shouldn't get "jerry springer" but you also don't get the media circus that is today's Washington.

I'm sorry if the two separate ideas were not adequately explained for you (or anyone), but for me, they really were two completely separate ideas for an "American compulsory service" system that everyone was talking about.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Making money is failure. Also made bigger something that makes no sense if you are trying to blame private businesses.

I'm not. I'm saying government can and should do things that the private industry can't or won't.

In that regard you and I agree, others mostly not.

azazel the cat wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.

What... the Hell... are you talking about?

The USA is not very good at just about anything anymore, except for one very, very specific thing: kicking the ass of anyone they want to.

And don't even bother mentioning the dismal efforts in Afghanistan- because that is a result of a low level of commitment. If the US decided to focus its wartime might, it would take the combined forces of the entire EU to beat them back.

Do not undervalue the product of 70 years of the military-industrial complex hard at work.

How about reading before replying? I never said they couldn't kick ass or that the US military were a inferior warmachine.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait you even have a military? Automatic swedish meatball launchers don't count. .

They don't count becuase we ate them. And i bet you they tasted better than your american counterpart.

There are Italian and Swedish Meatballs, but the only American Meatballs would be this:

^ American meatballs = broken link?

Bla_Ze wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education, training and professionalism.

What... the Hell... are you talking about?

The USA is not very good at just about anything anymore, except for one very, very specific thing: kicking the ass of anyone they want to.

And don't even bother mentioning the dismal efforts in Afghanistan- because that is a result of a low level of commitment. If the US decided to focus its wartime might, it would take the combined forces of the entire EU to beat them back.

Do not undervalue the product of 70 years of the military-industrial complex hard at work.

How about reading before replying? I never said they couldn't kick ass or that the US military were a inferior warmachine.

Oh, I read your post. Here, let me break it down for you:

Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in education....

The education of a soldier revolves around combat effectiveness. It will consist of everything from chain of command to survival scenarios to combat tactics and equipment proficiency. Soldiers do not need to know that King Charles I died in 1649, as it has no relevance to their job. While Swedish soldiers may be more academically educated (an assumption; I honestly do not know), I doubt that the conscripts will be better educated as soldiers than will the volunteers from the US.

Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in ... training...

This is just stupid, by virtue that a conscript will not be joining the ranks of any elite units; whereas you not only have to be a volunteer, but effectively live for the job in order to become a part of any elite specialization in the US military. What you have essentially done here is claim that a Swedish grunt is better trained than a US Navy Seal.

Bla_Ze wrote:I'll bet you scandinavian conscripts (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) are superior to your US volunteer soldiers in ... professionalism.

Again -like education- I suspect that you do not understand what the job of a professional soldier is. If you want to think of it as a customer service job, then fine. Just remember that it is the one service job where the customer is always wrong. A professional soldier is someone who follows orders to the letter and without fail. I can just about promise you that a draftee will never do this better than someone dedicated enough to volunteer of their own accord.

So if you look at my initial point, you'll find that when you add these factors up, you get a well-oiled war machine. One that has been refining itself in pursuit of perfection for 70 years. That roughly translates to my phrasing of "kicking the ass of anyone they want to". You cannot do so without excelling at the above three factors (but not only those three) without being superior to everyone across the board.

azazel the cat wrote:Again -like education- I suspect that you do not understand what the job of a professional soldier is. If you want to think of it as a customer service job, then fine. Just remember that it is the one service job where the customer is always wrong. A professional soldier is someone who follows orders to the letter and without fail. I can just about promise you that a draftee will never do this better than someone dedicated enough to volunteer of their own accord.

So if you look at my initial point, you'll find that when you add these factors up, you get a well-oiled war machine. One that has been refining itself in pursuit of perfection for 70 years. That roughly translates to my phrasing of "kicking the ass of anyone they want to". You cannot do so without excelling at the above three factors (but not only those three) without being superior to everyone across the board.

Not bad, BUT I want to point out that we do indeed teach and train inititative and critical thinking, laws of war, ROE and how to apply all those under stressful conditions, so sometimes being professional does mean following intent vice 'orders to the letter'.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:To solve that, I suggest that there be a cap on one's time in Washington, just like we do the Pres.

Term limits haven't been effective in a number of other democratic systems, largely because they tend to increase the power of political parties relative to individual politicians, and the government itself. Basically you end up with a system where both the politician, and the party, know that time in office is limited and so plans must be made for one's subsequent career. Generally this means using the larger party as a support network, one which is fully capable of blacklisting you and ruining your future career.

Moreover, the absence of a pervasive incumbency advantage tends to increase the influence of money interests due to the greater dependency on renewed campaign contribution relationships.

I was more or less done with my reply when my browser died so the answers will be short.

azazel the cat wrote:
The education of a soldier revolves around combat effectiveness. It will consist of everything from chain of command to survival scenarios to combat tactics and equipment proficiency. Soldiers do not need to know that King Charles I died in 1649, as it has no relevance to their job. While Swedish soldiers may be more academically educated (an assumption; I honestly do not know), I doubt that the conscripts will be better educated as soldiers than will the volunteers from the US.

I mean general education only. Im not familiar with what education volunteers get.

azazel the cat wrote:
This is just stupid, by virtue that a conscript will not be joining the ranks of any elite units; whereas you not only have to be a volunteer, but effectively live for the job in order to become a part of any elite specialization in the US military. What you have essentially done here is claim that a Swedish grunt is better trained than a US Navy Seal.

This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

Citation needed.

Bla_Ze wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:
This is just stupid, by virtue that a conscript will not be joining the ranks of any elite units; whereas you not only have to be a volunteer, but effectively live for the job in order to become a part of any elite specialization in the US military. What you have essentially done here is claim that a Swedish grunt is better trained than a US Navy Seal.

This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

I can't imagine how good a conscripted unit with next to nothing in the way of combat experience can outperform US Navy Seals. I can feasibly see the special forces of other nations outperforming the Seals, but their special forces will invariably have some sort of combat experience. Aside from Libya (and I don't think Sweden had troops on the ground there), the only conflict that Sweden had any part in was the the pacification of the Congo in the 60s.

AustonT wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

Citation needed.

It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.

Bromsy wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

Citation needed.

It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.

if we had a rematch, I'm sure the waist lines of America would prevail today

Bromsy wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

Citation needed.

It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone beat the US in an eating contest? Because I can only think of one country where eating is a sport broadcast on ESPN2...

AustonT wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

Citation needed.

No citation likely (ok maybe rescue, but hey thats the Coast Guard.)




Automatically Appended Next Post:

azazel the cat wrote:

Bromsy wrote:

AustonT wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:I
This is incorrect there were elite conscript units, for example Costal Rangers. They even beat out navy seals in competitions
Aside from physical qualities Seals are probably superior since i belive they have a longer training.

Citation needed.

It was a pancake eating contest back in '79. A dark day for America indeed.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone beat the US in an eating contest? Because I can only think of one country where eating is a sport broadcast on ESPN2...

indeed, the only people that can out eat Americans are skinny little Japanese guys who really like hot dogs.

A citation would be a waste, since i doubt you can read swedish

But it was a multisport competition and Seal team 5 from San Diego placed third.

And no, pancake eating was not an event in this competition.

Bla_Ze wrote:A citation would be a waste, since i doubt you can read swedish

But it was a multisport competition and Seal team 5 from San Diego placed third.

And no, pancake eating was not an event in this competition.

So you're saing some draftees beat volunteers who spend their whole lives swimming through surf, killing people, eating food that would make a billygoat puke, but you're not going to site a source at all?


What was the competition, competitive loafing?

Bla_Ze wrote:A citation would be a waste, since i doubt you can read swedish

But it was a multisport competition and Seal team 5 from San Diego placed third.

And no, pancake eating was not an event in this competition.

Länka eller det hände aldrig.

Frazzled wrote:

So you're saing some draftees beat volunteers who spend their whole lives swimming through surf, killing people, eating food that would make a billygoat puke, but you're not going to site a source at all?


What was the competition, competitive loafing?

Want me to bring your hearing trumped grampa? It was a multisport competition not killing competition, otherwise im sure our humble costal rangers would have lost. (Navy seals on exhange have commented that the training was even harder than your US equivalent)

AustonT wrote:
Länka eller det hände aldrig.

http://dyk.net/nyheter/kustj%C3%A4gare-sp%C3%B6ade-navy-seals

If you want badass look at the SAS.

Bla_Ze wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

So you're saing some draftees beat volunteers who spend their whole lives swimming through surf, killing people, eating food that would make a billygoat puke, but you're not going to site a source at all?


What was the competition, competitive loafing?

Want me to bring your hearing trumped grampa? It was a multisport competition not killing competition, otherwise im sure our humble costal rangers would have lost. (Navy seals on exhange have commented that the training was even harder than your US equivalent)

AustonT wrote:
Länka eller det hände aldrig.

Actually the only thing you've said is you've been caught in a lie. You won't reveal a cite. Cite it or shut the hell up.
http://dyk.net/nyheter/kustj%C3%A4gare-sp%C3%B6ade-navy-seals

Bla_Ze wrote:
That they place better in military competitions?

/Cites Adventure Race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_racing

I remain unimpressed, that is not a military competition.
HOLLEDAUER Pokal, Internationaler Schießwettbewerb, or the Canadian Army Trophy Competition.
What you linked is Superfrog in Sweden. Good on those two guys for winning, it's still an adventure race.

Only in desperate defensive situations that this method should ever be used.

AustonT wrote:

Bla_Ze wrote:
That they place better in military competitions?

/Cites Adventure Race
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_racing

I remain unimpressed, that is not a military competition.
HOLLEDAUER Pokal, Internationaler Schießwettbewerb, or the Canadian Army Trophy Competition.
What you linked is Superfrog in Sweden. Good on those two guys for winning, it's still an adventure race.

We are talking about conscripts here, there is a limit to the kind of event they would be allowed to participate in. I would think any other competitions like erna is done by experienced solders.

Private_Joker wrote:If you want badass look at the SAS.

The only non-US forces that I would honestly guess will be better trained than the US elite units would be Russian Spetznaz, and that is only by virtue of a few facts:
1) It was developed at a time when Russia's military might was parallel to that of the USA.
2) They have the population to ensure that only the top 0.001% of soldiers can make the cut.
3) They have been almost constantly involved in military actions thanks to the tumultuous state of affairs that has plagued the Balkans since forever.
4) The US will limit some training elements because they recognize at least a few human rights. Russia, however, long ago ran all out of 's to give.

azazel the cat wrote:

Private_Joker wrote:If you want badass look at the SAS.

The only non-US forces that I would honestly guess will be better trained than the US elite units would be Russian Spetznaz, and that is only by virtue of a few facts:
1) It was developed at a time when Russia's military might was parallel to that of the USA.
2) They have the population to ensure that only the top 0.001% of soldiers can make the cut.
3) They have been almost constantly involved in military actions thanks to the tumultuous state of affairs that has plagued the Balkans since forever.
4) The US will limit some training elements because they recognize at least a few human rights. Russia, however, long ago ran all out of 's to give.

Of course, in this day and age, many of the most skilled Spetznaz don't stay Spetznaz for long, they become mob enforcers for the ridiculous pay raise.

I think Matty might jump in for the Marine's on that list. Heck, he might even put in a good word or two for the Para's if he's feeling generous.

Hey thats what career paths are for!