Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are we number one by far or not?
I answered your questions why do you duck mine
If we postulate a flat plane, with no political limitations, and all the forces magically lined up, and given full combat loads and unlimited ammo, then in that hypothetical scenario, the US is number one.
If you want to talk about the real world, you talk missions.
How much forces do we need to move to the Baltics to defend them from a Russian Assault as we are obligated to by treaty?
THat's a trick question, btw. Do you see the trick?
It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.
HInt. Poland 1939.
Do you honestly believe Russia today has the military force to stand up to NATO?
<hint: think 1980s military equipment>
Talk mission. That is what Obama is doing
He does not believe the mission of our military forces should be the worlds policeman
Do you agree with him?
The trick part of the question was that we CANNOT defend the Baltics.
Just like the Brits and the French were in no position to defend Poland.
If you can't understand that, then you have NO grasp of what you talking about.
The trick is not can we...but do we want to
We are obligated by treaty to do so.
Our stated policy is that we DO want to.
The expense and loss of life would be enormous, even assuming no nukes. Which only a fool would assume.
AND we would still be obligated to defend South Korea and Taiwan.
If we postulate a flat plane, with no political limitations, and all the forces magically lined up, and given full combat loads and unlimited ammo, then in that hypothetical scenario, the US is number one.
If you want to talk about the real world, you talk missions.
How much forces do we need to move to the Baltics to defend them from a Russian Assault as we are obligated to by treaty?
THat's a trick question, btw. Do you see the trick?
It is PAINFULLY OBVIOUS.
HInt. Poland 1939.
Do you honestly believe Russia today has the military force to stand up to NATO?
<hint: think 1980s military equipment>
Talk mission. That is what Obama is doing
He does not believe the mission of our military forces should be the worlds policeman
Do you agree with him?
The trick part of the question was that we CANNOT defend the Baltics.
Just like the Brits and the French were in no position to defend Poland.
If you can't understand that, then you have NO grasp of what you talking about.
The trick is not can we...but do we want to
We are obligated by treaty to do so.
Our stated policy is that we DO want to.
The expense and loss of life would be enormous, even assuming no nukes. Which only a fool would assume.
AND we would still be obligated to defend South Korea and Taiwan.
Again, as always...it comes down to
Do we want to?
We didn't want to defend Crimea, would we defend the Baltics?
Could Russia's economy withstand the economic response from the west?
Do you honestly believe Russia today has the military force to stand up to NATO?
<hint: think 1980s military equipment>
Talk mission. That is what Obama is doing
He does not believe the mission of our military forces should be the worlds policeman
Do you agree with him?
The trick part of the question was that we CANNOT defend the Baltics.
Just like the Brits and the French were in no position to defend Poland.
If you can't understand that, then you have NO grasp of what you talking about.
The trick is not can we...but do we want to
We are obligated by treaty to do so.
Our stated policy is that we DO want to.
The expense and loss of life would be enormous, even assuming no nukes. Which only a fool would assume.
AND we would still be obligated to defend South Korea and Taiwan.
Again, as always...it comes down to
Do we want to?
We didn't want to defend Crimea, would we defend the Baltics?
Could Russia's economy withstand the economic response from the west?
We were discussing the military. Economic sanctions are another issue.
The existence of soft power does not support your argument that US hard power is supreme.
The trick part of the question was that we CANNOT defend the Baltics.
Just like the Brits and the French were in no position to defend Poland.
If you can't understand that, then you have NO grasp of what you talking about.
The trick is not can we...but do we want to
We are obligated by treaty to do so.
Our stated policy is that we DO want to.
The expense and loss of life would be enormous, even assuming no nukes. Which only a fool would assume.
AND we would still be obligated to defend South Korea and Taiwan.
Again, as always...it comes down to
Do we want to?
We didn't want to defend Crimea, would we defend the Baltics?
Could Russia's economy withstand the economic response from the west?
We were discussing the military. Economic sanctions are another issue.
The existence of soft power does not support your argument that US hard power is supreme.
If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer....every problem looks like a nail
It has to do with economic extortion being as effective a tool as military extortionThe trick is not can we...but do we want to
We are obligated by treaty to do so.
Our stated policy is that we DO want to.
The expense and loss of life would be enormous, even assuming no nukes. Which only a fool would assume.
AND we would still be obligated to defend South Korea and Taiwan.
Again, as always...it comes down to
Do we want to?
We didn't want to defend Crimea, would we defend the Baltics?
Could Russia's economy withstand the economic response from the west?
We were discussing the military. Economic sanctions are another issue.
The existence of soft power does not support your argument that US hard power is supreme.
If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer....every problem looks like a nail
And that has what to do with our discussion?
Oh, your trying to imply that we have such a HUGE military that we only think of using it do solve problems?
That's not only silly, it's completely off topic.
related , here is some good news , Ted Cruz plans to fix our ever weakening military . --- Ted Cruz Reveals Plan to Bolster Military --- and its a good thing , I think that Mr. Trump has similar plans .
lots of people think that fixing our military is needed . There is some concern that we couldn't fight 2 , 3 or more Wars at one time so guys like Cruz and Trump want to fix that problem Rightwinger !! Ted Cruz has plans should he be elected .
That's ridiculous and you are a liar. I'm in my 60's and I was in the military. In fact, I never met anyone who has been in the military who didn't know someone who was gay. The people everyone hated were the phobes. Cuz they were assholes. Not just the gays hated them, everyone did. Homophobes are ignorant assholes to just about everyone. Even to other soldiers in the military. A lot of those soldiers had gay brothers or sisters or uncles or aunts or classmates or cousins and so on. Anyone with a gay family member hated the phobes.yep , just my opinion plus seeing mrobama screwing around with pin prick bombing strikes as fighting Islamic state . [Example , civilians driving oil tankers so mrobama wouldn't destroy the oil tankers] ------------- When Russia strikes well they strike very nicely the way the USA should be striking , bombing !!. That's just one example while another example is mrobamas social engineering in the military Ogibillm .
I see you're getting your "facts" from right wing nutjobs again. Obama DID have those tankers destroyed, but, because they were driven by non combatants, leaflets were dropped prior to bombing all the tankers to tell the non combatants that they had a short amount of time to run away. Perfectly reasonable, as well as in compliance with the Geneva conventions.
And, if by "social engineering" you mean getting rid of DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military, well.................gays have been serving in the military since 1982, when I met the first gay person I'd ever seen in my life at my first command. DADT was a failed policy that kicked many good people out, who other than being gay, were exceptional soldiers and sailors.
Not only that, but there are benefits that spouses can use in the form of the Ombudsman program, which facilitates communication between the spouse and the command. If you were gay back then, you couldn't use it for fear of being kicked out.
I served for over 20 years in the U.S. Navy, between 1982 and 2002, and getting rid of DADT was the best thing that could have happened.
What branch did you serve in, and for how long?
We had no room for fags in the Navy I served. They were rightfully sent back home after suffering a few 'blanket parties'. And no queers, not the type party you were hoping for.
-Geaux
That's ridiculous and you are a liar. I'm in my 60's and I was in the military. In fact, I never met anyone who has been in the military who didn't know someone who was gay. The people everyone hated were the phobes. Cuz they were assholes. Not just the gays hated them, everyone did. Homophobes are ignorant assholes to just about everyone. Even to other soldiers in the military. A lot of those soldiers had gay brothers or sisters or uncles or aunts or classmates or cousins and so on. Anyone with a gay family member hated the phobes.yep , just my opinion plus seeing mrobama screwing around with pin prick bombing strikes as fighting Islamic state . [Example , civilians driving oil tankers so mrobama wouldn't destroy the oil tankers] ------------- When Russia strikes well they strike very nicely the way the USA should be striking , bombing !!. That's just one example while another example is mrobamas social engineering in the military Ogibillm .
I see you're getting your "facts" from right wing nutjobs again. Obama DID have those tankers destroyed, but, because they were driven by non combatants, leaflets were dropped prior to bombing all the tankers to tell the non combatants that they had a short amount of time to run away. Perfectly reasonable, as well as in compliance with the Geneva conventions.
And, if by "social engineering" you mean getting rid of DADT and allowing gays to serve openly in the military, well.................gays have been serving in the military since 1982, when I met the first gay person I'd ever seen in my life at my first command. DADT was a failed policy that kicked many good people out, who other than being gay, were exceptional soldiers and sailors.
Not only that, but there are benefits that spouses can use in the form of the Ombudsman program, which facilitates communication between the spouse and the command. If you were gay back then, you couldn't use it for fear of being kicked out.
I served for over 20 years in the U.S. Navy, between 1982 and 2002, and getting rid of DADT was the best thing that could have happened.
What branch did you serve in, and for how long?
We had no room for fags in the Navy I served. They were rightfully sent back home after suffering a few 'blanket parties'. And no queers, not the type party you were hoping for.
-Geaux
Who do these assholes think they are? Mitt Romney?
if Cruz gets in as President things may be changing from mrobamas way to the Cruz way BSailor !!
if Cruz gets in as President things may be changing from mrobamas way to the Cruz way BSailor !!
