The Great Debate: USAF [1/2]
ResouIa
Hello all and thank you for your time in advance. This is the first article of many to come that I intend to dub, "The Great Debate". The articles will have two parts each and will focus on the recent hot topics that have been discussed in Congress. Part one will always be a discussion where I take the most common arguments of one side, and allow members of the opposite side to counter them (Including myself if I so choose). Part two will be the posting of a live-debate I will be hosting. Meaning yes, a debate will be following this article. I will likely hold it in #Blacksheep, and I need volunteers on the Pro-USAF side to agree to take part in this debate. Time, date, and length, will be decided as most convenient, so please contact me if you are interested. And for now enjoy the read!
When confronted with the idea of cutting funding to USAF or getting rid of it entirely, the arguments displayed in the article are the most 5 common arguments I found used by Pro-USAF voices(Some slightly paraphrased after collecting responses in order to make them easier to understand). Anti-USAF voices will counter them; 2 voices per argument (Lest the length of the article become monstrous). The 6th and final point is a question of opinion for the anti-USAF voices.
#1. We need USAF to maintain the dictatorship.
Resoula: That does not mean we need to keep pouring ta
😜ayer money that is better spent elsewhere, or saved, into USAF. We need one man to control the military unit that houses the dictator for the purposes of maintaining it, and no other members whatsoever. As long as dictatorship exists as a law in eUSA, this may justify keeping a government-controlled MU open (Not necessarily USAF), but it does not justify wasting tax money.
eShades: Using the USAF as the conduit for the dictatorship is its own can of worms. If we, Congress, need to remove the Country President as is our constitutional right, well...that's setting up a field for USAF versus PMUs (in this case, PMUs would be the defenders of the eUSA). It'd be better to use another government military unit (possible the Civ MU which was the MU the CP used to command prior to the USAF)
#2. PMUs cannot be trusted to always put the interests of eUSA first. A government MU can and we need that leverage.
Bob Boudahili: While it is true that private MU's have done what they believe to be in their best interests over the perceived best interests of the Executive, it has been a minority of times. There have been notable big examples particularly the 2011 final blow up between Congress and the JCS. When it comes to getting military stakeholders on board, it requires work. This is not real life, there is no UCMJ, and commanders do not have confinement authority. There is a requirement of consent of the governed if the executive wants something to get done. It is a lazy CP/D that cannot sell a war to their people. If they cannot sell it, perhaps that failing indicates that it was not in the best interest of the eUS only in the interests of the Executive. Besides, the damage of the current USAF would not save the country in time of war, or be much of a force for the shifting of the balance of power in an international conflict.
eShades: Communication channels between PMUs and the executive are more open than ever. That level of trust between both parties is necessary to achieve the eUSA's goals -- the USAF is simply not the body this country needs. More steps are needed by both sides but we NEED PMUs to work with the government for the greater glory of 'Murica. Those steps should definitely include reprimands for soldiers fighting against eUS battle priorities (and if you're unaware, over a dozen PMUs are notified, by the National Security Council, of eUS priorities as they change). It's not fair to the eUSA if only the government has to do the legwork in obtaining bonuses, wars, and other all-around good stuff while PMUs sit and bask in the glory. I'm of the mind that, because of the nature and size of the eUS community these days, people will do their part not because the eUSA pays them to do it, but because they feel a sense of loyalty. Loyalty can come in several ways, chief among them roles in eUS government; EZC, War Inc, Freestyle (who are almost literally the eUS government :3), + others all have positions in Congress and in the Executive (ranging from advisors to the highest position), so I'm sure many PMU leadership are the most loyal eUS citizens around -- we just need both sides to realize it and take that obvious step to work even more closely.
#3. USAF is efficient is damage in correlation to the strength of its members.
Roper: USAF pays players to be in the unit with high supplies then also has to pay for them to step onto the battlefield with CO's and stuff. That is anything but efficient.
eShades: If you give me 80k a week and don't expect efficiency, lol to you. There are larger issues than simple efficiency. Is the USAF giving us damage we need? The eUSA needs D1, D2, and a little bit more D3 damage. Guess what kind of efficiency the USAF is giving us? Division four. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ They do have a few D1/D2 damage-dealers, though, so good for them.
#4. USAF is a good place for new players to learn the ropes.
Roper: PMU's have been just as valuable if not more than usaf has been in the past 2 years. A flourishing communty that includes every group is much better for the new players than anything. USAF will never present that long as tax payers are being forced to pay for it.
eShades: Is it really? They don't seem to have new players learning the ropes. The USAF in its current consolidated form has existed for longer than a year and sadly we're not seeing the sort of new player activity from them that would warrant the label of "good place for new players" over other organizations; basically, the USAF does the same thing as everyone else with regard to new players: give them gold, say hi for a little bit, and if they're still around, continue exactly the same why.
#5. To stop funding USAF is to kill their community. How would you like it if I proposed to kill your PMU's community?
Roper: If tax payers need to fund their Unit to keep their community alive then it's already dead and we're being asked to throw money away. If people who love USAF can't step up and fund their unit then they do not need to exist, that's on them and forcing it on the tax payers is wrong..
Resoula: Oh? So you're implying that USAF has a community as tightly knit and loyal as every single PMU in eUSA? Even the top ones that you have directed that statement towards? That's perfect! Then I bet since they are as closely woven and dedicated as we are, they'd have absolutely no problem surviving without government funds just as we've done and we will continue to do. That should be no problem right? Unless of course...you're overestimating the comradery of your precious USAF. If it wants to live it will swim as the rest of us have without stealing from the common man. If you've been keeping it alive in a vegetable state, it will sink, and you will be proven wrong. So come, and prove me wrong.
#6. So finally, what benefits would you say cutting funding from USAF would have for eUSA?
Henryfrench: If USAF could protect us when we get attacked by themselves I would fine with funding them but see no point when other MUs do just as much damage and costs us nothing.
eShades: Increases to the newly-budgeted DoI/DoE programs! Without a doubt, these departments are the real places for new players to truly learn the ropes. New players are the foundation of our community and they should be treated as such. Older players can't keep doing all the work, after all. Interior and Education are working well together and hopefully we'll see greater new player retention in eUSA.
Thank you all again for your time reading this article, it turned out to be a lot longer than i thought it would be, but I'm glad to have done it anyway. I hope this is something the citizens of eUSA find interesting, I find the idea of "The Great Debate" a good way to get the arguments off the dusty shelves of the eUSA forums that many active players don't like and refuse to visit, and right into the face of those players so that they can be kept up to date with and react to what is happening within our government.
Again if you'd like to take part in the debate I'll be hosting next (Pro or Anti USAF, but I especially need Pro USAF volunteers) please comment below, shoot me a PM, or ping me on IRC. I hope to cover a variety of issues using this format as the issues present themselves. I'd love to hear all of your feedback, and I'll see you all during the debates! (Which shall be announced once I figure out when they are going to happen)
Comments
go to the down mention link and Make a comment :
http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/usa-is-fighting-for-democracy-2538532/1/20
o/ Resoula
tl;dr
DeBAAAAAte!
★★★★ Baaaaaaa o7 ★★★★
"eShades: Increases to the newly-budgeted DoI/DoE programs! Without a doubt, these departments are the real places for new players to truly learn the ropes. "
As a newb, i agree with this.
Sheep partyline - The USAF is bad, especially since we got what was 'ours' out of it.
That's called evolution - from monkey to sheeple
You and every soldier above D2 would the first soldiers I threw out. Also stop with the Black Sheep stole crap, they paid the government back and yet you continue to harp on it; it's my opinion you are the biggest thief in America starting with the funding of the Ultramarines through OMS.
So...once again your hypocrisy shines. You say those who multi are scum. But you were caught using multis multiple times. But that's OK cause when you did the cheating you had some purpose and learned your lesson. Laughable Franklin, just laughable. Next you rail on and on about thieves. The sheep founders were caught red handed being thieves and started their MU with stolen loot. But since you like them, that's OK huh. Oh and say again they paid it back. They did not pay it back in full. Someone else paid part of it back for them. If in your book that makes it ok, then I suppose you'd be OK if I sole everything you had and then had someone else pay you a portion of it back. Would you be OK with that Franklin?
Where did I say what I did was OK, please link me to that statement. What I did was wrong and I paid for it. I am not the one who continues railing about thieves -that would Kemal Ergenekon. What I am on about is that BSP paid for the infrastructure they took with them, an amount sent by and accepted by Congress; if you have a problem with who paid it and the amount paid you need to take it up with Congress.
Last thing, what the took with them wasn't yours, it was America's....
🙂 good read I look forward to the debate.
★★★★ Baaaaaaa ★★★★
Thump Thump!
Donald Trump!
Where!?!?
On his way to the White House xD
You really are sheeple!
USAF funding is collected in tax-revenue in a little bit more then a day. You don't ask yourselves where the huge rest of taxpayers money is going, how it can be used to benefit the community as a whole and not only a few chosen 'caretakers'.
You lack true vision.
You just see 80k and think: ''How I would love to put my hands on it''
And VMA BS is a joke: almost 500 members and more then half of them are dead citizen!
You deal less influence then A$$ Owl's Whalestyle
"You don't ask yourselves where the huge rest of taxpayers money is going"
As no one should, the budget is up on the eUSA forums for anyone who is interested to see. If you are unaware, the think can be found here. http://eusaforums.com/forum/index.php/topic,35756.0.html
"how it can be used to benefit the community as a whole and not only a few chosen 'caretakers'."
You should read eShades' responses when you get the chance.
The budget is one thing, the CBO is another and deposits on private accounts of elite financial moguls is a whole different story.
SCI spending for Co and whatever should be made public after a while - show me where I can have a look at it.
Error 404 - transparency not found
I think that answers it all . your turn.
"SCI spending for Co and whatever should be made public after a while - show me where I can have a look at it."
Unfortunately that information is hidden several places on the forums to my knowledge, the most 'public' being the private congressional forums. Is that transparent? Of course not. But I think your idea of transparency is a good idea. Though the people in charge of it would likely tell you security > transparency. Not my department, not much else I can say.
Find it on the Forum, it's voted into law. See, that confirms my belief that you, as a current Congressman, don't know things you should know. But you are not the only one kept in the dark - that's the whole plan of those pulling the strings from the shadows. That's how they operate: if you are hiding information from new players you create your own influence, the power to be needed, to be irreplaceable, to have the needed 'experience' - this is not passed onto others by design.
Try to push for these laws to be fulfilled, try to be outspoken on this matter and I can tell you how long you will last.
And for f&%$§ sake: there hasn't been a CP cabinet without A$$ Owl in it pulling all the strings for over a year now. Guess who has the most influence over him...
Everyone else and everything is disposable - except them. Why? Cuz they have been here first!
Hail Albania
Hail Croatia
Hail Brotherhood
LMAO
Wait, you are a citizen of an unfriendly state and asking for transparency in the US government. Aren't you giving us a proof of why some things are not public until they are less relevant? SCI disclosures are released in private congress one month in arrears. After two months they are released into public areas of the forum. The executive, not congress, has the authority to release these numbers earlier if they wished.
Additionally, this month's budget is spending money on DoE/DoI programs to benefit the masses. So, some of that money is now being put to work in other ways. The questions being asked is about ROI. Are we spending money to spend money, or are we getting an appropriate return on our investment?
I'm not asking, I'm commenting.
DoE/DoI programs are peanuts.
Released to the public should mean released through an official government newspaper.
Whats the amount of taxpayers money on private accounts?
Ask this guy: http://www.erepublik.com/en/citizen/profile/837661
I am going to say this again, 'There are no secrets in this game.' ALL of America's tax revenue should be in America's Country Account and visible to every American.
Many will say it shouldn't be because what would happen if a 'Foreign Dictator' conquered America and raped our treasury and I say if America can't defend our Tax Revenue than we deserve to lose it.
The USAF can't and will never be able to do that alone, it is only 3rd best even with 105,000 CC to support it; so privatize it or lose it.
All these people got slapped hard with the stupid stick. Damn.
I'd argue on the pro US side but some of the shit that is said just not even making sense so I'd rather not even border with it.
voted and subbed for innovative media.
Debate? Where was the pro-USAF view? So no, it was not a debate, it was a hit piece.
[removed]
Actually I'll just quote the article for you, since you clearly didn't read it.
"The articles will have two parts each and will focus on the recent hot topics that have been discussed in Congress. Part one will always be a discussion where I take the most common arguments of one side, and allow members of the opposite side to counter them (Including myself if I so choose). Part two will be the posting of a live-debate I will be hosting. " (I am considering revising this format however to be explicitly the live debate, or two pieces of discussion instead.)
And where is the Pro-USAF view in this discussion? In the questions. Anything else you'd like to know? Or any other baseless accusations you'd like to throw?
And where is the Pro-USAF view in this discussion? In the questions.
Joke of the day
Ripped straight from the eUSA forums, enjoy. That's how discussions work.
You really are dumb. Go google discussion!
Your lack of maturity is actually starting to become entertaining, I won't lie. ❤, Here's what my oxford dictionary says.
"The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas"
The anti-USAF have discussed how they feel about the Pro-USAF view. Congratulations for needing everything explained to you. Anything else you'd like to pout about?
Your anti-USAF is cheap propaganda. You've used questions that are a cliche. I you wanted a honest debate, you'd interview players that would elaborate a pro-USAF standpoint as well. Now go outside and play with marbles xD
Propaganda? Nah. If you want the Pro-USAF side, convince Pro-USAF to take part, because as of now not one has stepped forward to take part in this discussion, or debate.
Now please go run around in a circle with scissors ❤
Really though if you want to see the other side, convince them. They don't want to vocalize their opinion it seems. Not my fault. If you can convince some, I'd appreciate it. I offered either a live debate to them or a discussion in the format this discussion is in, no takers.
This last proves my point that you didn't want a debate, just rant and bu hu hu stop financing USAF, we jealous xD
No, I do want a debate. That's why I'm still trying to get Pro-USAF to take part, are you daft or dumb? All it proves is that Pro-USAF doesn't so far want to express their opinion in the media for whatever reason XD
I think you've got a few bolts loose in your brain buddy.
I'll wait for the 2/2 and more bu hu hu from an immature wannabe.
There you can include the following: how many new players were mentored in the BS VMA last month, who are they and who runs that kind of program.
No really what's wrong in your head? You sound like one of those youtube trolls that is willing to keep an argument going for months without making any form of sense past the first day. Your responses have been degrading to nonsensical quality, is why I ask.
Also why join and then leave our MU randomly?
Also, why Serbia?
And now USAF, oi, you're jumping around places like crazy.
Just checked_ VMA BS 3 ppl in the MU chatroom, USAF 15 ppl. So much for activity LMAO
Have you ever even lived in the eUSA? Activity is on IRC in this country.
I can't tell if you're pretending anymore or if you're actually just this ignorant. I'm still fairly entertained, but you are quite a confusing individual.
You have over 200 dead citizens in your MU, almost half of you members - let's talk about activity LMAO
Yes 🙂 we don't kick dead citizens in case they want to come back. I'm getting the vibe that you aren't very fond of being considerate...
Valiant Thor AKA Iznad svih you really need to get a life lol.
Yo French, hallucinating much?
Just BTW: you can be thankful to Thor for making your pathetic party T5, you would never have done it by yourself!
You titled the article The Great Debate. Then instead of anything resembling a debate you published a hit piece with nothing but the views of other sheep. What you created was a form of yellow journalism. You used a false title to get people to read. Had you titled the article honestly, something like "The sheep talk shit about USAF" then no one other than other sheep would bother to read. You say the pro USAF crowd hasn't been vocal? They don't have to be. USAF is part of the government. It's up to you biased sheep and the commies in the SFP to convince the rest if us you have a valid point. We don't have to convince anyone USAF should exist, as it already does. Thing is though when you start your article from a point of dishonesty, you lose your credibility. And what does IznadSvih being Serb have to do with the value of what he said? He just made some good points and your only counter is......ohhh Serbia. That explains the lack of debate, you don't know how.
LMAO Troll on
Excellent point, French. You debate like a boss. BlackSheep suck this kind of debating power with their mother's milk xD