Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
--->
http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/e.asp
You have any other questions?
Above you will find a basic ranking model of the world military powers in relation to country size. Values are based on a country's placement in our various lists and shown as a collective average. Naturally a list such as this is designed to be subjective so there is room for disagreement as to its accuracy (or inaccuracy).
1 United States
2 Russia
3 China
4 India
5 Germany
6 France
7 Japan
8 Turkey
9 Brazil
10 Great Britain
11 Italy
12 South Korea
13 Indonesia
14 Mexico
15 Canada
16 Iran
17 Egypt
18 North Korea
19 Spain
20 Pakistan
21 Australia
22 Saudi Arabia
From your link:
GunnyL, you are very childish, discussions with you always this style:
A cheese in front of me is yellow, but you want it to sell me as blue cheese.
It's not us must haveing any fear of our neighbours, nor from any other Superpower invasing Turkey. It is impossible.
I really like this one:
http://globalfirepower.com/countries_comparison_detail.asp
Nothing childish about pointing out the fact that you just ain't the hot shit to try to sell yourself as. The "style" of the discussions is pretty-much my saying exactly THAT.
You genius, you wanted to tell me, USA is more powerful then Turkey?
For this i do not need you to recognize.
I have no problems in recognizig the USA as most powerfull country on the earth, but you have problems in recognizing other countries strength
What it is all about, is, that you said, that Turkey had to fear about Iran.
Which is only GunnyL-Fantasy just to shit User canavar.
We are one of the most powerful country in this world according to military.
And militarizing in Turkey is further improving from year to year and not stagnateing.
In future we will too be in that position.
To the contrary, I have no problem with other country's strengths. I have a problem with other country's strengths that exist only in your head.
You think Turkey has nothing to fear from Iran? Stalin thought he could trust Hitler, too. Since the obvious escapes you, more than half your country sits in the Middle East. Iran seems to foment religious rebellion wherever it so desires. Think your special little country is exempt?
That's called a logical conclusion, not a fantasy.
Turkey will NEVER be the most powerful Nation in the world. Y'all tried that once before, remember? You took a serious ass-whooping.
Did i say Turkey wants to become World-power Number 1 ?
No i Didn't say.
What you say is only that Turkey is weak and has to fear Iran blabla.
It exactly shows that you know nothing really good about Turkey.
Tell me one country which fulfills these cases:
- Iran opening own territory for neighbor's army so that neighbor can fight Terrorists in Iranian territory
- Iran to please neighbor and logically how ironic to negatively effect Iranian trade balance is giving neighbor's companies 1-3 Billion cheap export credits
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=60470
It is not Turkey who wants to start a love-relation with Iran, but it is Iran seeking support from Turkey and doing mostly everything what Turkey wants like opening its territory for Turkish soldiers. Or even giving Turkish private companies cheap export credits to help export their goods to Iran which is a disadvantage for Iranian goods production in Iran and therefore taxes and so on.
Turkey is neutral in the region. No crisis with any neighbor, be it Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia and all others.
Turkey stands above all these Mid-East problems and is therefore respected by all.
The only country we have problems with is currently Iraq, but that is only temporarily.
So Iran is playing "buddy" to Turkey to get what it wants. You keep harping on it, but so what? You may as well make a deal with a nest of vipers.
Don't know who sold you that last line of crap, but Turkey is NOT respected by all for sitting on the fence. Seriously dude, look into some deprogramming.
With your half-knowledge ( using constantly wrong cliches like Camels in Turkey, constantly weaken Turkey as it is really is) do not have to explain me my own country.
We have neutral to good relations with all Mid-East neighbors.
Good and neutral depends on specific countries which we would talk about.
But crisis Turkey does not have except maybe Iraq, which is only temporarily and our buddies in Washington will solve soon enough.
canavar, YOU do your country a disservice. It's exactly the kind of attitude YOU display, that has gotten most Middle Eastern countries in deep shit.
You, and YOUR country, live in a closed society, one that only considers the events taking place directly around, and in front of you. You'll NEVER understand the WORLD VIEW, NEVER.!
It's always been sage advice to stick to those things that you know, and in this case, you are OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE.
The US has had to grow up fast, and we have. The job of "policing" the world has been dropped in our lap, we didn't ask for it, we don't even WANT it, but there it is none the less.
No other country could do the job of world policeman as well, and with as much understanding as the United States, I'm sure you agree on that one.
Your jumping in on these threads, and talking about Turkey as if they are a "player" only shows how much you DON'T UNDERSTAND about how world politics works.
As Gunny has pointed out to you on post AFTER post, tap into the real world, read the reports, listen to those that were there, and see the results BEFORE you make completely STUPID statements.
NOW you can go back to playing with your decoder ring canavar.:rotflmao:
No trobinett. What i talk about is Turkey's neighborhood. There Turkey has a say.
If world interest was in South-America for example Turkey is off course too weak to influence anything there. But we are not talking about South America, but Turkey's neighboring region.
For you from 10.000 Km away USA this is off course far far world.
But for us not.
Just pass the boarder and you are in Syria, Iraq, Iran or other states which heavy international media interest.
Armenians have nothing to do with subject discussed here.
That you bring up Armenians just shows that you are not interested in serious discussion but only want to shit around.
If you care about Armenians, and not instrumentalize them for lower motives like you did here for example, you can discuss the subject here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41565
Kurtz Suggests Gregory's Nonpartisan, Just Reflecting Rest of Nonpartisan Media
Posted by Tim Graham on December 11, 2006 - 08:00.
In his Monday "Media Notes" column, long-time Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz was perfectly comfortable separating ideological New Media from "objective" Old Media. Just before a tidbit asserting that "conservative journalist" Richard Miniter is bringing fresh reporting to the Pajamas Media website, which "has leaned heavily to the right," Kurtz defended David Gregory in one of his look-at-me battles with Tony Snow. Kurtz suggested Gregory was not "partisan" in pressing Snow to acknowledge that the Iraq Study Group utterly rejected Bushs policy with "stay the course is not working" lingo. No liberalism there?
In fact, its quite easy for Snow to hear Democratic talking points in Gregorys question. Congressman Silvestre Reyes summarized what Democrats have been saying as group shorthand in the Saturday Democrat radio address: "Their report confirms what most of us have known for some time: President Bushs policy of stay the course is not working."
Kurtzs general point was merely a restatement of the conventional media wisdom, that newly leaked memos from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley demonstrate that the media was right to be gloomy on Iraq, since administration officials are gloomy in private. (Left unassessed is whether these reports were leaked to prove the administration isn't so out of step with the media.) The media template holds that any statement of hope for victory in Iraq is ridiculous, just insincere sales chatter. Heres how Kurtz summarized the Gregory exchanges:
When asked by NBC's David Gregory why the president wasn't "saying publicly what top members of this administration who were running the war were saying privately," press secretary Tony Snow said Bush had made clear that "things are not getting well enough fast enough."
Snow also accused Gregory of being "partisan" last week after a question in which the correspondent merely summarized the recommendations of the Baker group and quoted co-chairman Lee Hamilton. Snow was arguing that the report was not a rejection of the president's Iraq policy, as it was depicted by nearly all news organizations.
Its always rich to see someone depicted as not partisan because he reflects the world "as it was depicted by nearly all news organizations." Lets review what Gregory first asked, as Matthew Sheffield noted here on NewsBusters:
"On the evaluation in the report it says the following -- the co-chairs say the following: Stay the course is no longer viable. The current approach is not working. The situation is grave and deteriorating. Chairman Hamilton says he is not sure whether the situation can be turned around. Can this report be seen as anything other than a rejection of this President's handling of the war?"
First, lets note that Gregorys politicized hardball here is asserting that the Baker-Hamilton report can not be seen in any other way than as a rejection of President Bushs "handling of the war," a phrase lifted precisely from the common pollster approval-rating question. It can be argued (and Snow did) that the report supports Bushs goal of creating a sustainable self-governing democracy in Iraq. It can also be argued (and Snow did) that the report urged less finger-pointing and partisanship on Iraq. As for the partisans, on their blog, the DNC singled out Gregory's exchange and fussed at Snow, as if Gregory were the DNC blogger on the scene.
Gregory grew petulant when Snow said his tone was partisan, saying these were all "quotes from the report." In fact, theyre not all in the reports press materials. "Stay the course is no longer viable," Gregorys favorite, is not in the reports executive summary or letter from the Co-Chairs. It is, more predictably for reporters on the go, from James Bakers press conference statement. The liberal media quickly plucked that out for headlines (see, for example, the Los Angeles Times.) The text of the report was too dry and diplomatic for reporters. They wanted Bush-has-failed echoes.
That's nitpicking, perhaps. But it's not at all shocking for Snow to assert that Gregory used the most aggressive, liberal-pleasing "framing" in his question, that Bush is a failure in Iraq and positively everyone acknowledges it.
http://newsbusters.org/node/9582
Herbert Calls For Surrender, Buchanan Agrees With Neo-Cons [No Typo]
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on December 11, 2006 - 07:07.
Was it a planned one-two punch? On Saturday, New York Times columnist Frank Rich declared that "we have lost in Iraq." Today, in The Time Is Now, his Times colleague Bob Herbert flatly calls for surrender. No conditions, no time-table. As Herbert starkly puts it: "it is time to pull the troops out of harms way."
Herbert says "it is wrong to continue sending fresh bodies after those already lost." He raises the "moral question" of justifying "the lives that will be lost between now and the final day of our departure." But Herbert ignores another looming moral question: the lives that will be lost if we hastily retreat.
We flinch at the awful news of perhaps 100 Iraqi civilians killed every day. In the cold calculation of war, that makes for some tens of thousands per year. As bad as that is, it could be much, much worse. Does Herbert forget the consequences for innocent civilians the last time the US took advice like his and surrendered? Millions died in Vietnam and Cambodia. Does Herbert doubt that a similar bloodbath could occur in Iraq?
There is also the question of the loss of American lives at home. Chief Iraqi government spokesman Ali Aldabbagh had this to say when I interviewed him recently in Baghdad:
"On 9/11, America was attacked by men coming from Afghanistan. If the US were to hastily withdraw from Iraq, future 9/11s could be launched by men coming from Iraq." In other words, an Iraq abandoned to winds of terror would surely become a launching pad for attacks against the United States.
Turning on the news and learning of the deaths of our brave American troops is excruciating. But as awful as it is, we cannot lose sight of the fact that things could, and almost surely would, become much worse if we were to take Herbert's advice and abruptly leave. Abandoning Iraq to a cruel fate while exposing America to an Iraq turned Al Qaeda haven is no solution. It is the opposite of the kind of moral response Herbert claims to seek.
Hell-Freezes-Over Update: Stop the presses - Pat Buchanan agrees with neo-conservatives! Appearing on this morning's 'Today' show, Buchanan ridiculed the ISG recommendations: "John McCain and the neo-conservatives believe [the ISG approach] is a formula for defeat and frankly I think they're right. The Baker Commission is really not credible when it says we're in 'a grave and deteriorating situation but it will get better if we pull out all American combat units.'"
http://newsbusters.org/node/9581
U.S. troops have given Iraqis every chance in the world to pull it together as a nation but there are too many tribal and sectarian issues that gun toting gangs prefer to settle with violence. Apparently very few Iraqis identify themselves as Iraqi first. Iraqis are failing themselves.
Perhaps Iraq's national identity was actually stronger under hussein; all people were united by a common fear of saddam. Now it looks like Iraq will simply be carved up by existing regimes who already know all the secret passwords.
Tubal Cain.
