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

[rightwinger]

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.

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?

 

[Correll]

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?

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

If the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer....every problem looks like a nail

 

[Correll]

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

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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

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.

It has to do with economic extortion being as effective a tool as military extortion

 

[pismoe]

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 .

 

[rightwinger]

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 .

Too funny

Speaking in front of a World War II Navy dive bomber inside the U.S.S. Yorktown, Cruz called for increasing the number of active duty troops, airplanes and fighting ships. He also called for expanding the Air Force to include at least 6,000 airplanes, up from 4,000, and to increase the number of battleships from 273 to at least 350.

 

[pismoe]

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 .

 

[rightwinger]

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 .

Let's not go there
We do not need a WWII style military. We have strong alliances with NATO, S Korea, Japan and Australia

Who are we going to fight on 2 or 3 fronts that Ted is afraid of?

 

[pismoe]

goal is to be prepared . We now have problems starting with 'china' , Russia , Islamic state caliphate but the point is to be prepared to fight and kill all enemies if needed Rightwinger , just in case . Just my opinion but I have lots of company with about 49 percent of Americans thinking the same way . And to add , both Cruz and Trump have stated that they want to rebuild the USA military Rightwinger !!

 

[Agit8r]

It is certainly disturbing that a majority of those polled are f&@%tards

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, our Navy has more ships than any other country, our Air Force is bigger than anyone else, and our Army and Marines are better equipped than just about any other country.

Then............factor in the fact that if you're not actually in combat, you are constantly training like you were. In the Navy, we called it General Quarters, and every time we crossed the Atlantic to go to the Med, we held 2 drills/day. We also constantly did fire drills as well.

No, our military is better equipped and trained than any other country. Period.

We also have much better and more effective weapons for making things go boom.

 

[rdean]

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.

Who do these assholes think they are? Mitt Romney?

 

[paulitician]

End the Permanent War and take care of our Vets better. That's where more of the money needs to go. The Globalist Elites love to send folks off to die and have their limbs blown off. But they hate taking care of them and their families. They're a very nasty greedy bunch.

Our Vets are being treated miserably. They die and suffer immensely so some Elites can play war and get richer. Let's scrap this Permanent War foreign policy and really take care of our Vets. The time has come.

 

[ABikerSailor]

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.

Who do these assholes think they are? Mitt Romney?

I served in the Navy from 82 until 02, and I knew gay and lesbian sailors on almost every large command I ever served on.

And..............you're right................it's not the gays that were the problem in the military, it's the bigots.

I was a Personnelman for my entire career, and was responsible for preparing the Navy Wide Advancement Exam worksheets, which took into account their eval scores, personal awards, time in service, service in paygrade, etc.

And, because I was a good Personnelman and people trusted me a lot, I generally knew who was and wasn't gay in the command.

Guess what? On eval scores, personal awards given, the gays generally had higher averages than the straights.

 

[pismoe]

if Cruz gets in as President things may be changing from mrobamas way to the Cruz way BSailor !!

 

[paulitician]

if Cruz gets in as President things may be changing from mrobamas way to the Cruz way BSailor !!

Oh goody, WWIII. It's sure to be better than those other two. Can't wait.

 

[ABikerSailor]

if Cruz gets in as President things may be changing from mrobamas way to the Cruz way BSailor !!

What exactly is "Obama's way" and "the Cruz way", and what is the difference between the two in your opinion?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Why are Republicans continually disparaging our military.

Its the best in the world, bar none. You conservatives that think it weak why don't you exercise you 2nd amendment rights, go join up, and stop whining.

Every election Republicans talk about the US military as if it couldn't retake Honolulu if it had to, when in fact it is stronger than any other military in the world by a factor of ten.

 

[pismoe]

gentlemen , yes , USA military is very strong , I just want to see USA military stronger . I don't mind spending the money for more strength . Concerning Obama , hey , mrobama is a wusse and a terrible 'cic' in my opinion and my opinion is shared by millions of Americans that share my politics . .