Gallup- Americans Less Likely to See U.S. as No. 1 Militarily

[Correll]

How much do you think a chinese soldier makes in a year? Compare that to how much a US soldier makes.

How much do you think it costs to make an A-K knock-off in a chinese factory where the workers make 5k a year? Compare that to how much it costs to buy a M-16 made in an American factory.

(for some really simple examples)

You need money to keep troops paid, fed and armed, but the cost is not the same.


THus spending is normally needed to maintain or increase capability.

BUT, you cannot just look as spending and equate that to effectiveness.

That the other poster though he could, showed how ignorant of the issue he is and some serious flaws in how he judges the world.

I've noted that type of disconnect from reality before, and always with libs, so my point that it was a part of him being a lib.


Truthfully, I'm surprised I have to explain this.

How do you measure effectiveness?
...r

Issac measured it with amount of money spent.

That was stupid.

Do you agree?

For the most part, absolutely in terms of the US
It is the easiest measure to apply and is valid in this case

You would have to assume the US wastes its money in its investment in military. Clearly we don't. In spite of rightwing fear mongering, we have the most effective military in the world and have repeatedly proven it on the battlefield

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

Are you thinking that China somehow gets more "bang to the buck" from their military investment?

They don't....cheap labor is not the answer to an inferior military
North Korea has cheap labor....but South Korea has vastly superior forces

State of the art technology, superior training and advanced tactics are what wins in modern warfare...Blaming "lefties" does not change things

This is a very complex issue you are refusing to be honest about the simplest of facts.

 

[Correll]

Issac measured it with amount of money spent.

That was stupid.

Do you agree?

For the most part, absolutely in terms of the US
It is the easiest measure to apply and is valid in this case

You would have to assume the US wastes its money in its investment in military. Clearly we don't. In spite of rightwing fear mongering, we have the most effective military in the world and have repeatedly proven it on the battlefield

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

the gap in spending is so large as to overcome any pay disparities.

Did you read the bit, where I clearly stated that that was "ONE very simple and limited example"?

Did you understand it?

so give another

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Anyone that is afraid of some other nation's military capability compared to the US is really a connoisseur of fear. They eat it like gold leafed ice-cream and drink it like the finest wine.

Pity for these people is not enough.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The US spends about 650 billion/year, second would be China at around 130 billion/year.

If we aren't #1 then someone owes us 520 billion dollars right now. Who in their adled mind would think our military isn't spending enough? WTF?

JUst like a liberal to equate spending with effectiveness.

You don't think our military is more effective than China?
You been listening to rightwing fear mongerers again?

I made my point.

It is just like a liberal to equate spending with effectiveness.

DO you have anything to say that addresses that point?

Good, then since China only spends 130 billion we could as well and be just as effective according to you. Thanks Barney Fife.

 

[Correll]

Anyone that is afraid of some other nation's military capability compared to the US is really a connoisseur of fear. They eat it like gold leafed ice-cream and drink it like the finest wine.

Pity for these people is not enough.

Says the brilliant mind that thinks comparing budgets shows which military is the most effective.

 

[Correll]

The US spends about 650 billion/year, second would be China at around 130 billion/year.

If we aren't #1 then someone owes us 520 billion dollars right now. Who in their adled mind would think our military isn't spending enough? WTF?

JUst like a liberal to equate spending with effectiveness.

You don't think our military is more effective than China?
You been listening to rightwing fear mongerers again?

I made my point.

It is just like a liberal to equate spending with effectiveness.

DO you have anything to say that addresses that point?

Good, then since China only spends 130 billion we could as well and be just as effective according to you. Thanks Barney Fife.

You are so stupid, that you have no grasp of how little you understand the issue.

 

[ogibillm]

For the most part, absolutely in terms of the US
It is the easiest measure to apply and is valid in this case

You would have to assume the US wastes its money in its investment in military. Clearly we don't. In spite of rightwing fear mongering, we have the most effective military in the world and have repeatedly proven it on the battlefield

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

the gap in spending is so large as to overcome any pay disparities.

Did you read the bit, where I clearly stated that that was "ONE very simple and limited example"?

Did you understand it?

so give another

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

 

[Correll]

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

the gap in spending is so large as to overcome any pay disparities.

Did you read the bit, where I clearly stated that that was "ONE very simple and limited example"?

Did you understand it?

so give another

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

It is a huge expense that does not translate into combat power when an American Force meets an enemy force on or very near the enemies home territory.

It does pump up the military budget that confuses people who think comparing budgets is the same as comparing military effectiveness.

Do you want another example?

 

[rightwinger]

How do you measure effectiveness?
...r

Issac measured it with amount of money spent.

That was stupid.

Do you agree?

For the most part, absolutely in terms of the US
It is the easiest measure to apply and is valid in this case

You would have to assume the US wastes its money in its investment in military. Clearly we don't. In spite of rightwing fear mongering, we have the most effective military in the world and have repeatedly proven it on the battlefield

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

Are you thinking that China somehow gets more "bang to the buck" from their military investment?

They don't....cheap labor is not the answer to an inferior military
North Korea has cheap labor....but South Korea has vastly superior forces

State of the art technology, superior training and advanced tactics are what wins in modern warfare...Blaming "lefties" does not change things

This is a very complex issue you are refusing to be honest about the simplest of facts.

The fact that the US has the most powerful military in the world by any measure is not that complex

 

[rightwinger]

the gap in spending is so large as to overcome any pay disparities.

Did you read the bit, where I clearly stated that that was "ONE very simple and limited example"?

Did you understand it?

so give another

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

It is a huge expense that does not translate into combat power when an American Force meets an enemy force on or very near the enemies home territory.

It does pump up the military budget that confuses people who think comparing budgets is the same as comparing military effectiveness.

Do you want another example?

Are you denying our military effectiveness or that of NATO?

If you want to degrade military effectiveness, you need to look at countries like Russia or China

 

[g5000]

Holy crap... That poll sure shows how misinformed the US public is...

Yep.

A lot of people around here seem to bleev you can vote on Reality.

No other country even comes close to us militarily.

 

[Correll]

Issac measured it with amount of money spent.

That was stupid.

Do you agree?

For the most part, absolutely in terms of the US
It is the easiest measure to apply and is valid in this case

You would have to assume the US wastes its money in its investment in military. Clearly we don't. In spite of rightwing fear mongering, we have the most effective military in the world and have repeatedly proven it on the battlefield

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

Are you thinking that China somehow gets more "bang to the buck" from their military investment?

They don't....cheap labor is not the answer to an inferior military
North Korea has cheap labor....but South Korea has vastly superior forces

State of the art technology, superior training and advanced tactics are what wins in modern warfare...Blaming "lefties" does not change things

This is a very complex issue you are refusing to be honest about the simplest of facts.

The fact that the US has the most powerful military in the world by any measure is not that complex

Having power and being able to use it EFFECTIVELY to achieve your goals are two very different things.

Query: Why do you think that Bill Clinton sabotaged the Land Mine Treaty?

 

[Correll]

Did you read the bit, where I clearly stated that that was "ONE very simple and limited example"?

Did you understand it?

so give another

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

It is a huge expense that does not translate into combat power when an American Force meets an enemy force on or very near the enemies home territory.

It does pump up the military budget that confuses people who think comparing budgets is the same as comparing military effectiveness.

Do you want another example?

Are you denying our military effectiveness or that of NATO?

If you want to degrade military effectiveness, you need to look at countries like Russia or China

Sorry, if you think that comparing budget numbers is a good way to compare military effectiveness...


I can't dumb it down enough for you.

 

[rightwinger]

For the most part, absolutely in terms of the US
It is the easiest measure to apply and is valid in this case

You would have to assume the US wastes its money in its investment in military. Clearly we don't. In spite of rightwing fear mongering, we have the most effective military in the world and have repeatedly proven it on the battlefield

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

Are you thinking that China somehow gets more "bang to the buck" from their military investment?

They don't....cheap labor is not the answer to an inferior military
North Korea has cheap labor....but South Korea has vastly superior forces

State of the art technology, superior training and advanced tactics are what wins in modern warfare...Blaming "lefties" does not change things

This is a very complex issue you are refusing to be honest about the simplest of facts.

The fact that the US has the most powerful military in the world by any measure is not that complex

Having power and being able to use it EFFECTIVELY to achieve your goals are two very different things.

Query: Why do you think that Bill Clinton sabotaged the Land Mine Treaty?

Are you denying we have neither?

 

[rightwinger]

so give another

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

It is a huge expense that does not translate into combat power when an American Force meets an enemy force on or very near the enemies home territory.

It does pump up the military budget that confuses people who think comparing budgets is the same as comparing military effectiveness.

Do you want another example?

Are you denying our military effectiveness or that of NATO?

If you want to degrade military effectiveness, you need to look at countries like Russia or China

Sorry, if you think that comparing budget numbers is a good way to compare military effectiveness...


I can't dumb it down enough for you.

You are a lost soul

Look at the worldwide military budget numbers and tell me who you think is overrated in terms of effectiveness

 

[Correll]

It is in no way valid.

As I have already shown.


The fact that we pay a reasonable wage to American factory workers who make M-16s compared to China with it's workers is not a "waste" but neither does it translate into increased military effectiveness.

For ONE very simple and limited example.

Lefties like to pretend otherwise, because it serves their narrative of dismissing the arguments of Conservatives, as you just did.

If you cannot be honest about such a basic point, there is no way to have a conversation with you that has any connection with reality.

Are you thinking that China somehow gets more "bang to the buck" from their military investment?

They don't....cheap labor is not the answer to an inferior military
North Korea has cheap labor....but South Korea has vastly superior forces

State of the art technology, superior training and advanced tactics are what wins in modern warfare...Blaming "lefties" does not change things

This is a very complex issue you are refusing to be honest about the simplest of facts.

The fact that the US has the most powerful military in the world by any measure is not that complex

Having power and being able to use it EFFECTIVELY to achieve your goals are two very different things.

Query: Why do you think that Bill Clinton sabotaged the Land Mine Treaty?

Are you denying we have neither?

No, we have military power and we have land mines.


Query: Why do you think that Bill Clinton sabotaged the Land Mine Treaty?


(this is a leading question to see if you have any knowledge of military issues)

 

[Correll]

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

It is a huge expense that does not translate into combat power when an American Force meets an enemy force on or very near the enemies home territory.

It does pump up the military budget that confuses people who think comparing budgets is the same as comparing military effectiveness.

Do you want another example?

Are you denying our military effectiveness or that of NATO?

If you want to degrade military effectiveness, you need to look at countries like Russia or China

Sorry, if you think that comparing budget numbers is a good way to compare military effectiveness...


I can't dumb it down enough for you.

You are a lost soul

Look at the worldwide military budget numbers and tell me who you think is overrated in terms of effectiveness

Overrated? If you're looking at budget numbers, my understanding is that the Japanese would be horribly overrated by your method of comparing budgets to judge military effectiveness.

Why do you ask?

 

[ogibillm]

so give another

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

It is a huge expense that does not translate into combat power when an American Force meets an enemy force on or very near the enemies home territory.

It does pump up the military budget that confuses people who think comparing budgets is the same as comparing military effectiveness.

Do you want another example?

Are you denying our military effectiveness or that of NATO?

If you want to degrade military effectiveness, you need to look at countries like Russia or China

Sorry, if you think that comparing budget numbers is a good way to compare military effectiveness...


I can't dumb it down enough for you.

i think everyone understands your point. money alone isn't a measure of effectiveness.

i also think you need to admit that our military expenditures outpace everyone else's by such a large amount that it is in fact an indicator of our superior military might.

 

[Correll]

Sure.

Anyone we fight is going to be far away from US, unless Canada gets uppity.

Thus we have the expense of having to buy and maintain a massive logistic capability to support high consumption military force on the other side of the world, and our enemies do NOT.

This is ANOTHER very SIMPLE and LIMITED EXAMPLE of why just comparing funding is no way to compare effectiveness.

doesn't that actually make our military more capable than others?

It is a huge expense that does not translate into combat power when an American Force meets an enemy force on or very near the enemies home territory.

It does pump up the military budget that confuses people who think comparing budgets is the same as comparing military effectiveness.

Do you want another example?

Are you denying our military effectiveness or that of NATO?

If you want to degrade military effectiveness, you need to look at countries like Russia or China

Sorry, if you think that comparing budget numbers is a good way to compare military effectiveness...


I can't dumb it down enough for you.

i think everyone understands your point. money alone isn't a measure of effectiveness.

i also think you need to admit that our military expenditures outpace everyone else's by such a large amount that it is in fact an indicator of our superior military might.

RW is refusing to admit it. Issac hasn't admitted it.

It a standard dishonest tactic on the LEft, often used to attack the US from a number of angles, as a Bully for one example.


You sure you don't want some more examples? I could go on all day.

 

[rightwinger]

Are you thinking that China somehow gets more "bang to the buck" from their military investment?

They don't....cheap labor is not the answer to an inferior military
North Korea has cheap labor....but South Korea has vastly superior forces

State of the art technology, superior training and advanced tactics are what wins in modern warfare...Blaming "lefties" does not change things

This is a very complex issue you are refusing to be honest about the simplest of facts.

The fact that the US has the most powerful military in the world by any measure is not that complex

Having power and being able to use it EFFECTIVELY to achieve your goals are two very different things.

Query: Why do you think that Bill Clinton sabotaged the Land Mine Treaty?

Are you denying we have neither?

No, we have military power and we have land mines.


Query: Why do you think that Bill Clinton sabotaged the Land Mine Treaty?


(this is a leading question to see if you have any knowledge of military issues)

As I remember, Clinton supported the ban on land mines because they are immoral and it is the right thing to do

The Republican misinformation campaign stirred up the nonsense that our troops would be put in peril and Clinton reluctantly backed down

That land mine treaty?