Yo, x-spot (I shall call you that henceforth), Eis pointed out to me that I might have misunderstood your comment about the lisp. Explain your joke. Now!
Originally posted by Kinneary
I'm not worried about invasion. I'm talking about the influence we have from being so powerful.
Hmm, well, I assumed more of that is due to your strong economy.
Originally posted by Kinneary
It's not the threat of invasion. It's the threat of the threat of an invasion, if that sentence makes sense anywhere outside of my mind. That is, you don't mess with the guy with the big gun. I'm sorry if this offends some people, but that's the way the world is.
We have a small gun and we are not messed with....but I see your point. Though the ridiculous amount your spent (looking at your social problems) is a bit high, don't you think=
I think money can be cut from other social programs before we cut funding to our military, although some of the things we spend money on in the military can be cut out. Like free dental and healthcare for dependents of active duty personel. I'm in favor of minimizing government influence in the private lives of individuals, which includes a lot of school funding, etc.
Originally posted by Bardock42
We have a small gun and we are not messed with
Well, that's partly because you have lots of other small guns backing you, and also rather significant to note that absolutely and directly the 'not messing with' of both West and East Germany was created by someone else's HUGE gun.
The problem is, a clear set of terms for judging "strongest" militaries needs to be defined.
Things to consider:
1. Raw number of activetroops.
2. Number of actve troops in realtion to population.
3. Number of active troops in realation to geographical area.
4. Percent of population with military training.
5. Training experience of troops.
6. Combat experience of troops.
7. Personal armament.
8. Manned technological support (both size of and depth of) (tanks, artillery, fightercraft, ships)
9. Unmanned technological support (nukes, bombs, unmanned vehicles)
10. Public and Government support of the military.
11. Defense budget.
12. Intelligence capabilities.
13. Independance of the Military economy.
Originally posted by Kinneary
I think money can be cut from other social programs before we cut funding to our military, although some of the things we spend money on in the military can be cut out. Like free dental and healthcare for dependents of active duty personel. I'm in favor of minimizing government influence in the private lives of individuals, which includes a lot of school funding, etc.
So you want to make our kids more stupid? Interesting.
Originally posted by Alliance
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
23 Thailand
24 Argentina
25 Sweden
26 Israel
27 Greece
28 Taiwan
29 Syria
30 Philippines
31 Poland
32 Ukraine
33 Norway
34 Iraq
35 Libya
36 Venezuela
37 Lebanon
38 Nepal
39 Afghanistan
Originally posted by Nellinator
I am shocked at how low Israel is considering that almost every able bodied person in Israel is well trained, how experienced they are, the military success they have had, the high quality and quantity of equipment, and public support (at least within Israel). Surprised to see Brazil and Turkey ahead of the UK considering their equipment and training advantages. Pakistan seems a bit low too. Not surprised to see Iran and Egypt up high although Egypt has dropped since Nasser.
Yea ,becuase they trianed to kill innocent people but in lebanon war (real war) they were like chicken 😄 ,I dont know why US waste billions for isreal and ignore health care issue of most american people ? 😉 stupid ..
Pakistan and india are poor countries ,i think that their people need food and place to live more than weapons ...thats insane ..