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

[rightwinger]

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.

I've justified my response

You have yet to do so. If you don't agree that the list of military spending is an accurate reflection of military strength provide your list of what you think that strength should be

Why do you keep ducking a simple request?

 

[Correll]

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?

LOL!! Bill CLinton sent the treaty back with a change (a special exception for America, because America, fuck yeah) when he knew damn well that the way the treaty was set up that there was not time for a change and re-approval.

He purposefully killed that stupid treaty.

It was one of the few times his actions had my unqualified support.

Do you understand WHY he sabotaged the treaty?

 

[Correll]

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.

I've justified my response

You have yet to do so. If you don't agree that the list of military spending is an accurate reflection of military strength provide your list of what you think that strength should be

Why do you keep ducking a simple request?

Because there is nothing simple about this issue.

Our military spending should be based on what we need to fulfill our commitments.

NOt based on a comparison to what other nations are supposedly spending.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

LOL!! Bill CLinton sent the treaty back with a change (a special exception for America, because America, fuck yeah) when he knew damn well that the way the treaty was set up that there was not time for a change and re-approval.

He purposefully killed that stupid treaty.

It was one of the few times his actions had my unqualified support.

Do you understand WHY he sabotaged the treaty?

He was bullied by rightwing fear mongerers

It was an embarrassment for our nation

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I've justified my response

You have yet to do so. If you don't agree that the list of military spending is an accurate reflection of military strength provide your list of what you think that strength should be

Why do you keep ducking a simple request?

Because there is nothing simple about this issue.

Our military spending should be based on what we need to fulfill our commitments.

NOt based on a comparison to what other nations are supposedly spending.

Why can't you answer a simple question

If you don't agree with the above chart say what you don't agree reflects overall military strength? Do you think our military strength is overrated?
Why?

Nobody said what our spending should be. The thread is about what our military power is today

 

[Correll]

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?

LOL!! Bill CLinton sent the treaty back with a change (a special exception for America, because America, fuck yeah) when he knew damn well that the way the treaty was set up that there was not time for a change and re-approval.

He purposefully killed that stupid treaty.

It was one of the few times his actions had my unqualified support.

Do you understand WHY he sabotaged the treaty?

He was bullied by rightwing fear mongerers

It was an embarrassment for our nation

He did it because the landmines that we use in SOuth Korea are a huge advantage to US and allied forces there.

Getting rid of them would be absolutely stupid.

Which is why he asked for an exception for America, to be able to use landmines.

And sank the Treaty nicely.

He didn't think our military effectiveness was so much greater than North Korea's and China's combined that we could afford to give up the benefit of having mine fields in the best attack routes from the North.

In that, he agreed with ME, and disregarded YOUR view on American military budgets/might.

 

[Correll]

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.

I've justified my response

You have yet to do so. If you don't agree that the list of military spending is an accurate reflection of military strength provide your list of what you think that strength should be

Why do you keep ducking a simple request?

Because there is nothing simple about this issue.

Our military spending should be based on what we need to fulfill our commitments.

NOt based on a comparison to what other nations are supposedly spending.

Why can't you answer a simple question

If you don't agree with the above chart say what you don't agree reflects overall military strength? Do you think our military strength is overrated?
Why?

Nobody said what our spending should be. The thread is about what our military power is today

To consider if we have the military power we need, we have to look at our commitments and see if we have the force to meet them.

That graph is useless for that. It contains NONE of the information we need.

We are committed by treaty to defend Turkey if they get into a shooting war with Russia.

What forces do we need to be able to get there and support in order to win that war?

 

[rightwinger]

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?

LOL!! Bill CLinton sent the treaty back with a change (a special exception for America, because America, fuck yeah) when he knew damn well that the way the treaty was set up that there was not time for a change and re-approval.

He purposefully killed that stupid treaty.

It was one of the few times his actions had my unqualified support.

Do you understand WHY he sabotaged the treaty?

He was bullied by rightwing fear mongerers

It was an embarrassment for our nation

He did it because the landmines that we use in SOuth Korea are a huge advantage to US and allied forces there.

Getting rid of them would be absolutely stupid.

Which is why he asked for an exception for America, to be able to use landmines.

And sank the Treaty nicely.

He didn't think our military effectiveness was so much greater than North Korea's and China's combined that we could afford to give up the benefit of having mine fields in the best attack routes from the North.

In that, he agreed with ME, and disregarded YOUR view on American military budgets/might.

Show me where Clinton said he did not believe the US military's effectiveness is greater than China and N Korea combined

That statement is laughable

 

[rightwinger]

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.

I've justified my response

You have yet to do so. If you don't agree that the list of military spending is an accurate reflection of military strength provide your list of what you think that strength should be

Why do you keep ducking a simple request?

Because there is nothing simple about this issue.

Our military spending should be based on what we need to fulfill our commitments.

NOt based on a comparison to what other nations are supposedly spending.

Why can't you answer a simple question

If you don't agree with the above chart say what you don't agree reflects overall military strength? Do you think our military strength is overrated?
Why?

Nobody said what our spending should be. The thread is about what our military power is today

To consider if we have the military power we need, we have to look at our commitments and see if we have the force to meet them.

That graph is useless for that. It contains NONE of the information we need.

We are committed by treaty to defend Turkey if they get into a shooting war with Russia.

What forces do we need to be able to get there and support in order to win that war?

You are ducking again

We are not talking mission, we are talking military strength
Is the US the most overwhelming military or not?

 

[Correll]

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?

LOL!! Bill CLinton sent the treaty back with a change (a special exception for America, because America, fuck yeah) when he knew damn well that the way the treaty was set up that there was not time for a change and re-approval.

He purposefully killed that stupid treaty.

It was one of the few times his actions had my unqualified support.

Do you understand WHY he sabotaged the treaty?

He was bullied by rightwing fear mongerers

It was an embarrassment for our nation

He did it because the landmines that we use in SOuth Korea are a huge advantage to US and allied forces there.

Getting rid of them would be absolutely stupid.

Which is why he asked for an exception for America, to be able to use landmines.

And sank the Treaty nicely.

He didn't think our military effectiveness was so much greater than North Korea's and China's combined that we could afford to give up the benefit of having mine fields in the best attack routes from the North.

In that, he agreed with ME, and disregarded YOUR view on American military budgets/might.

Show me where Clinton said he did not believe the US military's effectiveness is greater than China and N Korea combined

That statement is laughable

Strawman.

He didn't SAY it. That would be political disadvantageous.

He demonstrated it with his actions.

And spun it to provide himself with political cover.

He didn't vote no, he just wanted to make a little "change".

 

[Correll]

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.

I've justified my response

You have yet to do so. If you don't agree that the list of military spending is an accurate reflection of military strength provide your list of what you think that strength should be

Why do you keep ducking a simple request?

Because there is nothing simple about this issue.

Our military spending should be based on what we need to fulfill our commitments.

NOt based on a comparison to what other nations are supposedly spending.

Why can't you answer a simple question

If you don't agree with the above chart say what you don't agree reflects overall military strength? Do you think our military strength is overrated?
Why?

Nobody said what our spending should be. The thread is about what our military power is today

To consider if we have the military power we need, we have to look at our commitments and see if we have the force to meet them.

That graph is useless for that. It contains NONE of the information we need.

We are committed by treaty to defend Turkey if they get into a shooting war with Russia.

What forces do we need to be able to get there and support in order to win that war?

You are ducking again

We are not talking mission, we are talking military strength
Is the US the most overwhelming military or not?

If you are talking about effectiveness you need to consider missions.

Otherwise, you are purposefully being misleading.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

LOL!! Bill CLinton sent the treaty back with a change (a special exception for America, because America, fuck yeah) when he knew damn well that the way the treaty was set up that there was not time for a change and re-approval.

He purposefully killed that stupid treaty.

It was one of the few times his actions had my unqualified support.

Do you understand WHY he sabotaged the treaty?

He was bullied by rightwing fear mongerers

It was an embarrassment for our nation

He did it because the landmines that we use in SOuth Korea are a huge advantage to US and allied forces there.

Getting rid of them would be absolutely stupid.

Which is why he asked for an exception for America, to be able to use landmines.

And sank the Treaty nicely.

He didn't think our military effectiveness was so much greater than North Korea's and China's combined that we could afford to give up the benefit of having mine fields in the best attack routes from the North.

In that, he agreed with ME, and disregarded YOUR view on American military budgets/might.

Show me where Clinton said he did not believe the US military's effectiveness is greater than China and N Korea combined

That statement is laughable

Strawman.

He didn't SAY it. That would be political disadvantageous.

He demonstrated it with his actions.

And spun it to provide himself with political cover.

He didn't vote no, he just wanted to make a little "change".

He demonstrated that he sold out his values to the right wing fear machine

 

[rightwinger]

I've justified my response

You have yet to do so. If you don't agree that the list of military spending is an accurate reflection of military strength provide your list of what you think that strength should be

Why do you keep ducking a simple request?

Because there is nothing simple about this issue.

Our military spending should be based on what we need to fulfill our commitments.

NOt based on a comparison to what other nations are supposedly spending.

Why can't you answer a simple question

If you don't agree with the above chart say what you don't agree reflects overall military strength? Do you think our military strength is overrated?
Why?

Nobody said what our spending should be. The thread is about what our military power is today

To consider if we have the military power we need, we have to look at our commitments and see if we have the force to meet them.

That graph is useless for that. It contains NONE of the information we need.

We are committed by treaty to defend Turkey if they get into a shooting war with Russia.

What forces do we need to be able to get there and support in order to win that war?

You are ducking again

We are not talking mission, we are talking military strength
Is the US the most overwhelming military or not?

If you are talking about effectiveness you need to consider missions.

Otherwise, you are purposefully being misleading.

Are we number one by far or not?

I answered your questions why do you duck mine

 

[paulitician]

This Poll had to be created by Neocon (Nazi) warmongers. An attempt to work the Sheeple up into supporting more wars. But the reality is, no other country can come close to the amount of money the U.S. spends on its military.

The U.S. military is the most powerful deadly military force ever created in human history. That should be enough for the American People. We don't need endless war to prove it.

 

[Correll]

LOL!! Bill CLinton sent the treaty back with a change (a special exception for America, because America, fuck yeah) when he knew damn well that the way the treaty was set up that there was not time for a change and re-approval.

He purposefully killed that stupid treaty.

It was one of the few times his actions had my unqualified support.

Do you understand WHY he sabotaged the treaty?

He was bullied by rightwing fear mongerers

It was an embarrassment for our nation

He did it because the landmines that we use in SOuth Korea are a huge advantage to US and allied forces there.

Getting rid of them would be absolutely stupid.

Which is why he asked for an exception for America, to be able to use landmines.

And sank the Treaty nicely.

He didn't think our military effectiveness was so much greater than North Korea's and China's combined that we could afford to give up the benefit of having mine fields in the best attack routes from the North.

In that, he agreed with ME, and disregarded YOUR view on American military budgets/might.

Show me where Clinton said he did not believe the US military's effectiveness is greater than China and N Korea combined

That statement is laughable

Strawman.

He didn't SAY it. That would be political disadvantageous.

He demonstrated it with his actions.

And spun it to provide himself with political cover.

He didn't vote no, he just wanted to make a little "change".

He demonstrated that he sold out his values to the right wing fear machine

He demonstrated with his actions that he thought that the allied forces in South Korea could NOT afford to give up the advantage of Landmines.

This shows that he did not feel that US military EFFECTIVENESS was so much greater than China's and North Korea's that there was nothing to worry about.

Comparing Budgets is not a way of judging military effectiveness and Bill Clinton knew it.

 

[Correll]

Because there is nothing simple about this issue.

Our military spending should be based on what we need to fulfill our commitments.

NOt based on a comparison to what other nations are supposedly spending.

Why can't you answer a simple question

If you don't agree with the above chart say what you don't agree reflects overall military strength? Do you think our military strength is overrated?
Why?

Nobody said what our spending should be. The thread is about what our military power is today

To consider if we have the military power we need, we have to look at our commitments and see if we have the force to meet them.

That graph is useless for that. It contains NONE of the information we need.

We are committed by treaty to defend Turkey if they get into a shooting war with Russia.

What forces do we need to be able to get there and support in order to win that war?

You are ducking again

We are not talking mission, we are talking military strength
Is the US the most overwhelming military or not?

If you are talking about effectiveness you need to consider missions.

Otherwise, you are purposefully being misleading.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Why can't you answer a simple question

If you don't agree with the above chart say what you don't agree reflects overall military strength? Do you think our military strength is overrated?
Why?

Nobody said what our spending should be. The thread is about what our military power is today

To consider if we have the military power we need, we have to look at our commitments and see if we have the force to meet them.

That graph is useless for that. It contains NONE of the information we need.

We are committed by treaty to defend Turkey if they get into a shooting war with Russia.

What forces do we need to be able to get there and support in order to win that war?

You are ducking again

We are not talking mission, we are talking military strength
Is the US the most overwhelming military or not?

If you are talking about effectiveness you need to consider missions.

Otherwise, you are purposefully being misleading.

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?

 

[Correll]

To consider if we have the military power we need, we have to look at our commitments and see if we have the force to meet them.

That graph is useless for that. It contains NONE of the information we need.

We are committed by treaty to defend Turkey if they get into a shooting war with Russia.

What forces do we need to be able to get there and support in order to win that war?

You are ducking again

We are not talking mission, we are talking military strength
Is the US the most overwhelming military or not?

If you are talking about effectiveness you need to consider missions.

Otherwise, you are purposefully being misleading.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

You are ducking again

We are not talking mission, we are talking military strength
Is the US the most overwhelming military or not?

If you are talking about effectiveness you need to consider missions.

Otherwise, you are purposefully being misleading.

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

 

[Correll]

If you are talking about effectiveness you need to consider missions.

Otherwise, you are purposefully being misleading.

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.