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

[rightwinger]

mrobama has been running the military...

mrhusseinbama has been running the military into the ground for the past 7+ years, he hates the very sight of our men and women in uniform.

Why is military readiness higher today than it was seven years ago?

 

[Geaux4it]

And more on this topic

-Geaux

The decline of US power?

Lost fear factor
Polls regularly show that Americans recognise that their country's international standing has waned.

Among the young, this trendline has fallen sharply. Only 15% of 18-29-year-olds believe that America is the "greatest country in the world", according to Pew, down from 27% in 2011.

Tellingly, however, there has been no great public outcry.

No longer is there much appetite for America playing its long-standing role of global policeman, even in the face of the rise of the group calling itself Islamic State.

The cost, human and financial, is considered too great. Americans increasingly think that other countries should share the burden.

Obama, while continuing to trumpet "American exceptionalism", regularly prefaces remarks on foreign affairs by acknowledging the limits of US power, again with little public outcry.

The decline of US power? - BBC News

 

[rightwinger]

And more on this topic

-Geaux

The decline of US power?

Lost fear factor
Polls regularly show that Americans recognise that their country's international standing has waned.

Among the young, this trendline has fallen sharply. Only 15% of 18-29-year-olds believe that America is the "greatest country in the world", according to Pew, down from 27% in 2011.

Tellingly, however, there has been no great public outcry.

No longer is there much appetite for America playing its long-standing role of global policeman, even in the face of the rise of the group calling itself Islamic State.

The cost, human and financial, is considered too great. Americans increasingly think that other countries should share the burden.

Obama, while continuing to trumpet "American exceptionalism", regularly prefaces remarks on foreign affairs by acknowledging the limits of US power, again with little public outcry.

The decline of US power? - BBC News

No question that Bush used up all of Americas appetite for invading and nation building
After Bush, Americans have no tolerance for useless invasions and do not believe the rhetoric they are told about foreign threats

 

[Wildman]

I served 22 years. You are Goddamned right I'm a patriot. You?

i fucked up, forgive me ?

 

[Wildman]

...you hate the president.

give me just one good reason we patriots should NOT hate that Kenyan born muslime mulatto illegal alien son-of-a-bitch (and she was!).

 

[Correll]

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?

Do you believe your own point ?
You don't think we have the most effective military in the world?

What does being liberal have to do with believing we have an effective military?

My point was about the liberal equating spending with military effectiveness.

Which was fucking stupid of the liberal. And typical of a liberal.

As you have not responded to my point, I don't see where you get off asking me questions.

If you don't care about that point, they why did you hit the reply button?

Why are you such an ass?
What does liberal have to do with it
If conservatives don't believe more spending results in a more effective military, why are they always asking for more spending?

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.

 

[ogibillm]

I served 22 years. You are Goddamned right I'm a patriot. You?

i also served, 25 years, oogilbum you fucking right I'm a PATRIOT. he is just another fucking spineless asshat Randall.., or a coward enjoying the freedom we patriots have provided for over 200 years!!

Don't know why you're mad at me, i support our military and the men and women that serve

 

[ogibillm]

...you hate the president.

give me just one good reason we patriots should NOT hate that Kenyan born muslime mulatto illegal alien son-of-a-bitch (and she was!).

who the hell are you jabbering about?

 

[Wildman]

...take out...

speaking of "taking out" did any of you see this:

Sniper kills ISIS executioner during beheading class
An Islamic State executioner’s head exploded during a class on beheading after a well-aimed shot by a British Special Air Service sniper.

“One minute he was standing there and the next his head had exploded. The commander remained standing upright for a couple of seconds before collapsing and that’s when panic set in,” a source told the newspaper on Monday. “We later heard most of the recruits deserted. We got rid of 21 terrorists with one bullet. He was an extremely sadistic and ruthless individual, feared by the locals and the jihadis alike.”

Read more at Sniper kills ISIS executioner during beheading class
***************************************************************

i like that story, i can visualize that scumbags head exploding, i call it the "Crimson Halo"........!!

 

[Wildman]

Don't know why you're mad at me, i support our military and the men and women that serve

i fucked up, forgive me ? that message was for the liberscum who was dissing our military and patriots in general..,sorry!!

 

[ogibillm]

Don't know why you're mad at me, i support our military and the men and women that serve

i fucked up, forgive me ? that message was for the liberscum who was dissing our military and patriots in general..,sorry!!

so someone like RandallFlagg

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Do you believe your own point ?
You don't think we have the most effective military in the world?

What does being liberal have to do with believing we have an effective military?

My point was about the liberal equating spending with military effectiveness.

Which was fucking stupid of the liberal. And typical of a liberal.

As you have not responded to my point, I don't see where you get off asking me questions.

If you don't care about that point, they why did you hit the reply button?

Why are you such an ass?
What does liberal have to do with it
If conservatives don't believe more spending results in a more effective military, why are they always asking for more spending?

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?
Number of soldiers like China? Hardly
Chinese soldiers are mere targets for our military

You can best look at effectiveness through force multipliers. How does your equipment allow you to kill more of your enemy than they can kill of you?

During WWII we killed about six times the number that we got killed. Today it is over 100 times

That is an effective use of our defense dollar



.

 

[Correll]

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?

Do you believe your own point ?
You don't think we have the most effective military in the world?

What does being liberal have to do with believing we have an effective military?

My point was about the liberal equating spending with military effectiveness.

Which was fucking stupid of the liberal. And typical of a liberal.

As you have not responded to my point, I don't see where you get off asking me questions.

If you don't care about that point, they why did you hit the reply button?

Why are you such an ass?
What does liberal have to do with it
If conservatives don't believe more spending results in a more effective military, why are they always asking for more spending?

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?

 

[SwimExpert]

England is a second rate power because we put them there..

Actually, that was the Germans. But whatever.

 

[rightwinger]

Do you believe your own point ?
You don't think we have the most effective military in the world?

What does being liberal have to do with believing we have an effective military?

My point was about the liberal equating spending with military effectiveness.

Which was fucking stupid of the liberal. And typical of a liberal.

As you have not responded to my point, I don't see where you get off asking me questions.

If you don't care about that point, they why did you hit the reply button?

Why are you such an ass?
What does liberal have to do with it
If conservatives don't believe more spending results in a more effective military, why are they always asking for more spending?

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

 

[Correll]

My point was about the liberal equating spending with military effectiveness.

Which was fucking stupid of the liberal. And typical of a liberal.

As you have not responded to my point, I don't see where you get off asking me questions.

If you don't care about that point, they why did you hit the reply button?

Why are you such an ass?
What does liberal have to do with it
If conservatives don't believe more spending results in a more effective military, why are they always asking for more spending?

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.

 

[ogibillm]

Why are you such an ass?
What does liberal have to do with it
If conservatives don't believe more spending results in a more effective military, why are they always asking for more spending?

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.

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

 

[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.

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?

 

[rightwinger]

Why are you such an ass?
What does liberal have to do with it
If conservatives don't believe more spending results in a more effective military, why are they always asking for more spending?

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

 

[ogibillm]

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.

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