Finest military in the world?

[oinkment]

I received an email from the Dean campaign with the following remark: "Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers won't be home for the holidays -- but we can still let them know how proud we are of the finest military in the world."

Just out of curiousity, what is the source of these "finest military in the world" claims I keep hearing from politicians? Is there any objective evidence to back it up? Or is it simply grandstanding? I would have thought that Israel, for example, would have a finer military.

I suppose the definition of "fine" could be open to interpretation, though ... Maybe they mean "fine" as in "good-looking" or "healthy."

[Screaming Lord Byron]

1. I'd say there was a top tier of similarly able militaries.

I can't see the US having superior forces to the UK, for instance.

[NewJeffCT]

9. US vs the world

In terms of size, training and available technology & equipment, the US has the best military in the world, hands down. Some militaries might be better person-for-person (maybe the UK or Israel) in terms of training, but they lack the sheer size of the US armed forces and are, at best, the same level tech-wise.

Some militaries might be bigger (China is a decent size bigger, I believe), but lack the training and technology available to the US (China has had to buy submarines from the Russians, for example, and I am guessing the Russians didn't sell them their best submarines)

[picus9]

73. Are you serious or joking?

The UK has a better military than the US?

However, I can see from your avatar that you salute the queen, the queen's subjects don't techniaclly have freedom of speech so I can forgive you.

;^)

[thebigidea]

75. talk about tacky

tonight on Jingoist Playhouse!

[Screaming Lord Byron]

92. No, I was saying there are a bunch of military forces of similar ability

not that the UK military is better or worse than the US. I'd say man-for-man there are about a dozen nations of similar quality, but that the US has the technological advantage.

[ithacan]

93. US military = next 25 countries combined

If finest = biggest, then this is true.

Proposed Pentagon Budget: Exceeds that of Next 25 Nations
Based on CDI’s latest analysis, the proposed $396 billion Fiscal Year 2003 Pentagon spending package exceeds that of the next 25 nations combined.

For more information, see CDI’s updated “World Military Expenditures” factsheet and “Military Spending: U.S. vs. the World, FY’03”

Q: Previous estimates placed proposed U.S. military spending at being equivalent to that of the next 15 countries. Why the huge change?

A: When you rank countries by the amount each spends on the military, once you get beyond the “Top Ten,” military budgets per nation fall to about $15 billion. When you get below the top 15, spending falls below $10 billion per country. Thus, the proposed $48 billion increase in U.S. military spending covers the budgets of a lot of countries.

FACT: More than 100 countries have military budgets of less than $1 billion, roughly what the Pentagon spends in one day.

FACT: Over 50 countries have military budgets of less than $100 million. Under the proposed budget, the Pentagon would spend that much in just over two hours.

FACT: If you converted the proposed $396 billion Pentagon budget in to silver dollars and stacked them one on top of another, it would make a stack 690 thousand miles high. That’s roughly three times the distance to the Moon, and enough to circle the Earth 27.5 times.

http://www.cdi.org/document/search/displaydoc.cfm?DocumentID=216&StartRow=1&ListRows=10

here are the details:

United States $396.1 Billion

Russia* $60.0

China* $42.0

Japan $40.4

United Kingdom $34.0

http://www.cdi.org/issues/wme/spendersFY03.html

[IronLionZion]

96. much of that money goes to education and stuff

so don't forget that we treat our soldiers much better than those other countries.

[IrateCitizen]

97. Wrong! Most of it goes directly to military contractors!

Bill Moyers had an interesting piece on NOW in which he interviewed a retired Pentagon employee who was a whistleblower during his career. He talked about how, when the defense budget went up or down, the military was essentially buying the exact same stuff. How is this possible? Because the price of military hardware went up or down, depending on how much the budget was!

The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of funds for Pentagon spending go directly to the military contractors. It's all part of what this former employee called the "Military Industrial Congressional Complex" -- what he claims is the term that Eisenhower really wanted to use, because Congressional pork (and campaign contributions) are so caught up in the whole system.

The GI Bill and programs like it are valuable programs. But don't kid yourself that they represent any kind of significant percentage of the overall military budget, because they don't.

[mobuto]

101. That's simply not true

the true measure of military power is force projectibility, and no country, and not Britain by any means, has the power to project power even one thousandth as well as the United States.

The US has logistical and technical superiority over every other great power combined. This doesn't mean, by any means, that our soldiers fight better (although I'm not saying they don't), but we have the ability to use force in ways far more effective than anybody else can.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

2. finest military

Best funded, best trained, highest-tech. The Israeli Army is essentially an extension of our military, as they get all their tech from us. Basically we can kick anybody's ass, conventionally or otherwise, it is this might that Bush is intoxicated with.

[IronLionZion]

99. you'll be in for a rude shock

if Bush tries to invade North Korea or China. Even with nukes and air superiority, he won't be able to do it.

That's a huge reason why Nixon decided not to send "peacekeeping" troops into India during the 1971 war. There's no way in hell you can go to another country with so many people and occupy them. Shear numbers will overcome you and the deaths on the US side won't be worthwhile.

[AngryAmish]

100. British East India Company?

Cortez and other Conquisadors(sp?)?
Roarke's Drift?
A small force with superior training, discipline and technology has and will be able to defeat larger forces. While not ideal, it has been done. But I agree with you about North Korea or China. He would never invade because there is no oil there.

[Bandit]

3. Yep best bunch of organized killers on the face of the planet

:shrug: Hoorah for the killing machine.

[bahrbearian]

6. I'd like to see a Dept. of Peace !

Go Dennis

[Bandit]

8. "Give Peace a Chance"

:shrug: We can dream can't we.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. Yes, we can dream...

...but till we are able to make the dream a reality we will still need the Military to do waht they do, and we are far better off having them the best there is.

[picus9]

74. That's what we need, another Govt. Department.

A bunch of hacks sitting around collecting 60k/year while the budget soars some more.

Nothing like hide and seek for a grand a week.

[DarkPhenyx]

11. Yup! Horray for them.

I don't think we would like the world we live in if we didn't have them around.

[alwynsw]

15. Do you mean that same bunch of organized killers

whose service in the past has both given you the freedom to make that statement and kept that freedom alive?

It's an imperfect world. Our current military might serves as an integral part of the structure that allows you to keep that freedom today.

Your comment is insulting to those of us who have proudly served, are currently serving in, or have friends and relaatives who have served or are serving in the military of any nation.

edited for punctuation

[Bombtrack]

18. Amen. I don't think there have been many more shameful comments

it's both a shame that there are Americans who can look at the military like that and a shame to the left that the ignorant fringe has been tolerated as much as it has

[Bandit]

35. I would match my military credentials up against anyone on this forum

Glad you feel so strongly about our mighty killing machine. I have experienced it first hand have you?

[alwynsw]

47. I did my time in the military.

And I stand by my previous comment.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

69. Try both.

My last MOS was 11Bravo. Desert Storm.

My first was an AFS 871. Yup. A bandsman.

[Bandit]

72. Ahhh the queen of battle

I had that mos for a while myself. Bravo Co 2nd of the 12th 1st Cav then attached 5th SF out of Nha Trang. Spent two tours in the Nam and none of it as a remf. I saw many things that would make you cringe and they were done by Americans. Americans are brave and couragous soldiers but they can be brutal and sadistic also. As for them being the best killing machine on the face of the planet, it is a fact whether you like it or not.

[DarkPhenyx]

77. C Bat, 1st Bn, 27th FA KING OF BATTLE!

Our weapons roar, they never rattle!

[Superfly]

80. Another Redleg!!!

1-37 FA, Ft Lewis WA 155mm (T)

My boat is named "Charge 8 Super"....

[DarkPhenyx]

84. Spent my gun time with the launchers.

Kinda anti-climatic really. Guns go BOOM! Launchers just kinda woosh. :-( I was born a "Tube baby" though. Trained on the 155mm. I was severly pissed when tehy canceled teh Paladin project.

[Superfly]

85. They did?

That's funny, because I was on Paladins for 2 years...

(They cancelled Crusader)

[DarkPhenyx]

86. My bad! You are right.

They canceled Crusader. Just a small brain fart there.

[Bandit]

81. You've been my savior more than once

Glad you were there.

[DarkPhenyx]

83. Hey...No Prob!

Big Brother FA has gotta look out for Little Bro Infantry. We love you guys, Man. :)

[thebigidea]

41. you're right! We should start being incredibly intolerant to the fringe

we should be hostile. we should PERSECUTE. The days of freedom are over - no one must be allowed to freedom to criticize those that secure our freedoms.

And may God CONTINUE to bless America.

[IrateCitizen]

21. That's one of the biggest myths going

Our current military might serves as an integral part of the structure that allows you to keep that freedom today.

Bullshit. And I say that as someone who serves in the military.

What our military does is provide overwhelming force with a global reach. When you hear words like "freedom" or "democracy" used in conjunction with the exercise of military might, what you are really hearing is code talk for "markets", "cheap resources" and "power".

If you want to look at who has guaranteed your freedoms over the years, look no further than those who have had the courage to dissent and stand up for those freedoms at times that they were unpopular. Look to people like Daniel Shays, Eugene V. Debs, Emma Goldman, Martin Luther King, Phil Berrigan, and so on. THOSE are the people who guarantee things like the freedom of speech by having the courage to exercise it at times that it is not popular. THEY are the ones who have inspired others to do the same through their actions. And all too often, it has been the soldiers who have been used as the tools of the state to repress the exercise of such freedoms.

While you are perfectly within your rights to find the comment to which you responded insulting, don't pretend that those in the military are actually doing something more than they are. Because they are not the "protectors of freedom" that they are made out to be -- of course, through no true fault of their own.

[DarkPhenyx]

25. It is too bad you serve.

You might want to consider seeking alternate employment. Just my opinion.

[IrateCitizen]

28. Was it also too bad that Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler served?

Even after his two medals of honor? Because he described his service in the military as nothing more than "high-class muscle for Wall Street".

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[DarkPhenyx]

31. Yes, it is. n/t

[IrateCitizen]

36. There are none more blind that those who refuse to see (n/t)

[PissedOffPollyana]

89. Now Smedley Butler really did save our freedom!

In the early 30s, a group of fascist-leaning industrialists (many of whom are probably on the Hitler's Little Helpers list as well) attempted a coup against FDR. Some names were mentioned, but with the state of the nation's nerves, Roosevelt felt it would be too damaging to make public by charges against some of the largest & wealthiest employers in the country. Consequently, the perpetrators skated scot free without a mention in anybody's history books. Anyway, the story was that he would be brought in to "help" FDR, then take over, threatening with troops (already ready to go through -I believe-?- the American Legion of all things) if necessary. Fortunately, he was rabidly anti-fascist and had a personal loyalty to FDR as well because he blew the whistle and tipped Roosevelt. Now THAT is some true blue protecting of my freedom.

It's a great story and "War is a Racket" is great essay! I posted a link to it just the other day on another thread... seems very relevant nowadays!

[IrateCitizen]

34. Too bad in what sense? That I don't romanticize about it?

I have nothing against the people I have known in the military -- the overwhelming majority of them are fine individuals who know the meaning of words like honor and integrity. But the problem lies not with them -- the problem lies with the nature of militarism itself, and the willingness of those with power to use that militarism to accomplish nefarious ends. It also lies in romaticization about an organization that, whether we like to face the fact or not, has its primary purpose in spreading death and destruction. The US military is made to fight and win wars, and that is what war is. Death and destruction.

As for me, don't worry, I'm on my way out. Hopefully sooner rather than later -- so that I can take up the mantle of working to bring an end to militarism and the destruction that goes along with it.

[thebigidea]

30. I don't remember the Army ever giving me any freedom

I recall the Bill of Rights has something to do with that.

[DarkPhenyx]

38. Defended and supported by the military.

We'd still be under british rule had we not formed the military, adn the BoR would just be a piece of paper.

[IrateCitizen]

40. The BoR IS just a piece of paper

It means nothing without people willing to stand up for it, especially when it is not popular to do so.

You may see those people as being in the military. I do not -- rather, I see them as those who are willing to stand up and dissent at the price of their livelihoods, or even their lives.

[DarkPhenyx]

44. Now you put words in my mouth.

Did I say anything about people outside the military not being important to the defense of the BoR? Nope. I definately did not. However the people you speak of would be rather innefective against a tank column rolling across their town. They are, however, more effective agasint those inside teh country would attack the BoR. well, they used to be. Then they got stupid.

[IrateCitizen]

52. You mean that tank column from the War of 1812?

Seeing as how that was the last time that our home soil was invaded by a sovereign army.

WWII could probably, considering the surrounding circumstances, be characterized as necessary, because the Nazis were the closest thing we've ever seen to a purely evil regime. But at the same time we shouldn't pretend that we were fighting on the side of righteousness either.

Beyond those instances, I have a hard time figuring out when the military was actually directly used to protect our freedoms. Perhaps the time of Stalin post WWII was another example, but we also did our best to antagonize the Soviets at least as much as they did to us during the Cold War.

BTW, I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just continuing the discussion from where you said that it's a shame that I serve.

[BigDaddyLove]

66. It would seem that.......................

our standing armed forces might be the reason that no-one has attacked our soil lately. It's kinda like the apprehensiveness one might feel prior to slapping Shaq.....I'd guess the consequences of doing so wouldn't be all that pleasant.

[IrateCitizen]

68. I'm sure it never had anything to do with geography...

Basically, that anyone attacking us would either have to take over Mexico or Canada first, if they didn't want to cross thousands of miles of ocean.

Speaking of which, Canada has never had a very large military, and yet they have never been attacked. Can you explain that one away? Nor was the United States attacked on its mainland after the War of 1812 -- even when it also had a relatively small military. Please explain that one as well.

[DarkPhenyx]

78. It is a shame.

But you at least served.

[IrateCitizen]

98. Well, that's your opinion... you know what they say about opinions

:evilgrin:

[cirej2000]

54. Wow!

Why fight it DarkPhenyx? You'll never change the minds of some folks. But I can appreciate and thank you for your service to the country. I also believe that the military is there to protect our freedoms and those of others in the world.

How it is being used now notwithstanding, it'll be a much scarier world if we disband our military or make them impotent.

[thebigidea]

56. I demand impotent armed forces! Sterilize the lot of them!

who the hell is advocating we disband our military or make them impotent?

[cirej2000]

59. If they're going to be impotent they might as well dress impotent

I don't want to argue today. You're correct. You've sterilized my will to debate with your acute facts and wit.

[thebigidea]

60. and you're the debate champion, the master of STRAW MEN

again, who the hell is advocating impotence?

[cirej2000]

62. Nobody...

Now if you'll excuse me, Great Leader, I have some more straw men to create.

;)

[thebigidea]

63. make sure they have nothing to do with anything any one has said

[Bandit]

67. Their new black beret is quite impotent looking

I like your humor. We all need some for relief. Thanks.

[DarkPhenyx]

79. The beret looks cool in the dress uniform...

...it's stupid in the BDU's. I also think it should have been left with the Rangers insted of adopted service wide in order to make us look more like UN troops. My opinion of course.

[Bandit]

87. I guess I'm a little unhappy about them ~ Mine was green and it meant

something. Now they don't mean shit. I suppose you can blouse your boots in greens now too.

[DarkPhenyx]

88. I agree.

The change was pretty stupid, and had no real "purpose". then again it isn't the first decison made that had no purpose other than to make a change and put a "bullet comment" on someones OER.

[thebigidea]

42. so under British rule, would you have disrespected the redcoats?

They secured your freedom, and their uniforms were really spiffy.

[alwynsw]

70. And just who fought the Brits to make that a reality?

[htuttle]

4. It's certainly the most expensive military in the world

.

[Uzybone]

5. In military terms finest=strongest

the military who can kick any other militarys' ass is the finest.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Alright people...

Listen, this is exactly what those redneck Republicans attack us on whenever it comes to the military. Having the finest military in the world is NOT something to be ashamed of people. It is not only a good thing, but it is a necessary thing. You must remember, however, that our military does not form policy. It is merely a tool. A tool that is being egregiously misused by our appointed president.

I am very proud of our military. I am proud that it was able to find and capture Saddam Hussein. I am proud that it works so hard to protect all of us. I am not proud that they are being used to further the political agenda of this war-criminal administration. There is a very fine distinction, and should we want to win back the White House, we had best start being extremely clear between the two.

[alwynsw]

71. Bravo!

Well stated indeed!

[DarkPhenyx]

10. having been in the military...

...and having worked with our counterparts from other countries, I can honestly say we do have teh finest military. A lot of the foreign officers and soldiers I spoke with agreed. Discipline, equipment, commitment, training...with very few exceptions our military is the best there is.

Try not to confuse our military with the idiot that is currently in charge of it.

[Bush is a chimp]

12. Best Military

Israel would top my list because they have been at a state of war for decades. Also they are backed up by the USA so they get the best equipment.

America has a strong Military, Bush is just using it the wrong way right now.

[Randi_Listener]

27. Tool

The military is merely a tool of the nation. It's like a hammer. You can use a hamemr to build a house or you can use a hammer to smack an old lady over the head for $0.50. It's all in how you use it. We have the finest tool in the shed.

[DarkPhenyx]

33. So what is your point? n/t

[Randi_Listener]

43. It's merely a tool.

It isn't inherently evil or good. It is the finest in the world but not evil as many posters here try to suggest.

[thebigidea]

45. you are like, soooo wrong, like, man

the military is inherently good, they piss sweet lemonade, their angelic hair is like a halo, crowning them with the glow of GOODNESS.

[Randi_Listener]

55. That's right.

Their bowel movements can cure cancer.

[thebigidea]

57. and if it doesn't, the cancerous morons should be THANKFUL anyway

the rich excrement put out by our UNRIVALED armed forces is at LEAST as effective as chemotherapy.

[DarkPhenyx]

48. Thank you for the clarification.

Wasn't sure what point you were trying to make. :)

[Benhurst]

14. They certainly did a fantastic job defending the United States

on 9/ll against surprise attacks on unlikely targets in two obscure cities, proving the $350 billion or so spent for defense year after year was more than worth it.

[DarkPhenyx]

16. Being particularly daft this week?

Defending agaisn tthat particular attack was not the job of the U.S. Military. That would have been the job of our Intelligence Agencies. That would be where the failure was at. Unless of course you think we should have had military escorts on all civil flights within the United States prior to the attacks in September.

[Benhurst]

19. Of course the blame rests with Bush. But once the planes were

out of radio contact with air traffic control, to say nothing of known to be hijacked, why weren't normal procedures followed to provide them with an escort? Or is this only done for the private planes of professional golfers? (sarcasm) The quality of our armed services is unquestionably high. The question that needs to be asked is why they weren't brought into play.

[DarkPhenyx]

22. You already answered that question.

The adminsitration. I seem to recall that the Air Force was in a standdown mode.

If I recall rightly, there was also a delay from ATC before tehy actually called the alert.

[thebigidea]

32. so NORAD didn't fuck up? They failed.

Your precious band of freedom-lovers sat around with their collective thumbs wedged up their asses.

[DarkPhenyx]

37. Well, you can be safely ignored.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[thebigidea]

39. so you're saying that NORAD did a terrific job on 9/11?

Congradulations, your patriotism has now officially blinded you to reality.

But you're right - safe to ignore any one who would dare find fault with those fine young men and women who can walk on water, kill the sick, then HEAL the sick.

[Pillowbiter]

17. Domestic defense is not the job of the military

Unless a police state is declared.

The blame for 9/11 rests solely on Bush and his administration.

PB

[forgethell]

23. I thought the blame

lay with Osama??

[damnraddem]

20. Come on! This is necessary poliitcal hype.

Although the U.S. military may be the best-equipped in the world, and maybe one of the better-trained. However, it has deteriorated under Dubya, and he and Rummy are actively destroying it. When they get done, it will have a politicized officer corps at the top, demoralized troops, under-subscribed reserves and National Guard, inadequate training for the jobs it is set, and a horrible international reputation.

[DarkPhenyx]

26. The Officer Corps was already pretty politicized.

The fault for that falls on Clinton and Carter. That and the portion of the liberal spectrum that is constantly calling soldier "organized killers" and worse.

You are correct, though, that the morale issues among the troops rest squarely with the current administration.

[s33]

24. Undoubtedly,

the U.S has the strongest military but that is due mostly to numbers and arsenal.In military circles,the U.S airforce is seen as having the best pound for pound force in terms of quality of men and training.In other areas however,due mostly to the ease of getting into the American army,other nations troops are better trained.In terms of the best special forces,Australian and British SAS are widely viewed as the best(hence they were chosen over American special forces to be lead recon in Iraq).The Commonwealth Navy(mostly comprising Britain and Australia again)is slightly stronger than the US too.As for best light,all-round force(though weak in the water),that would probably be Israel,though Israel would not trouble any decent sized western country in an actual war.Russian troops are extremely well trained,and probably make up the best pound for pound standing army.

[DarkPhenyx]

29. I would disagree.

You mention the SAS. Let's compare apples with apples shall we? The SAS is a "special ops" force. Compare it to the Green Berets or Delta Force.

You are also picking and choosing. Yes, there are certain units in certain countries that can be rated slightly higher than ours. Now, look at their military as a whole and we can, unit for unit, beat the pants off of them. There isn't a military out there that can matcch us overall. Even on an level playing field.

[thebigidea]

46. we could beat them all AT ONCE

Americans are the most powerful, the most humane, the most glorious, the FINEST PEOPLE ON THE PLANET.

Those killed by Americans should consider it an honor to be dispatched with such efficiency.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

49. I want to be eaten first! Me! Me!.

Please, Oh great Cthulu!

[thebigidea]

53. behold our GLORIOUS ARMED FORCES!

Lovecraftian horrors beyond time and space!

Man, all hell broke loose when they hit the Pentagon and released Yog-Soggoth.

[adriennel]

51. we spend a lot more on our military

than any other country in the world. In the United States, money=good.

[IrateCitizen]

58. It's actually the next 25 nations combined

True Majority has the stats on this. We spend more on our military than the next 25 largest militaries in the world COMBINED.

[adriennel]

64. Thanks!

I remember hearing that word of mouth, now it's good to have a source.

[knight_of_the_star]

61. Just because we have the finest military

Doesn't mean we should use it at the drop of a hat. I feel we SHOULD keep the strong military force that we have for defense of ourselves and our allies, but nothing more than that. After all, who here wants to see street-to-street fighting in New York and LA just to repel a foreign invader? I would rather we beat them at sea, or better yet on their own turf, but we should ONLY use our armed forces against genuine threats to us or our allies.

[DarkPhenyx]

82. Amen.

My biggest complaint through all of this Bush nonsense has been that our military was used as a force of conquest and empire building.

Use of the military is what we have to resort to when the politicians fail to do their job right. now, if Bush is wlling to admit he is a failure.....

[info being]

65. I think it is an objective measure...

The military that can most quickly destroy the whole world gets the title.

[texas is the reason]

76. well we damn sure spend enough to have the finest one!..

if anyone out there has a better one for less, i'd sure like to know where they're shopping....oh, that's right- WE arm the rest of the world...if we didn't create a dangerous world to live in and supply people like saddam hussein, we wouldn't have any reason to keep making new shit to use against the people we sold the old shit to!! but man, that new f-22 fighter plane is gonna be SOOOOOOO COOL-screw the defecit, lets buy five thousand, and sell the f-15's to north korea- you know they're buying!!

[arewethereyet]

90. Israel's military is terrific but limited to the mission it serves

which is to be able to quickly address arab attackers.

it doesn't have to travel, its based right where it fights just to name a few items.

nothing compared to ours.

China has more ground troops but nothing close to anything wlse we have in weapons, command and control and intellegence. Russia is a shell of itself. Iraq is defeated. The rest are pests.

[lotteandollie]

102. I think you hit every point

...I can't add anything to your post.

[Blue-Jay]

91. I have no problem with that.

Name me a better military force and I'll change my mind. Ours are the best and the brightest. Back that up with the tech at our disposal, and there's no arguement.

My only problem is with how they've been used and abused as of late.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Nuclear submarines and ICBMs against guerillas.

The most expensive military in the world, no doubt. The rest is all PR. They're great against demoralized, partially armed, badly led, masses of troops in the open.

Against guerillas, they're better at using the age old tactic of all conquerers in terrorizing civilians.

My respect for the military hasn't changed since I was in it.

[IronLionZion]

95. Israeli soldiers are known to be the best

but they don't have the size or technology to much more than be a regional superpower and persecute Palestinians. China and India have the largest militaries and both are nuclear powers. I fear China because nobody knows what they have and they are rolling in money. (think about all the cheap plastic stuff they make) The Koreas also have rockin militaries out of necessity. One could say that the US has the best technology and most nuclear weapons.

Saying our military is the finest is meant to make the people feel good. I would say let it go. This one is not worth arguing. If people think we are the finest, then we don't need to increase size and funding and could use that money for education and healthcare instead.