Grape, trying to be a middle aged white man- lol.
How many times has body armor been used in war? How many times have nukes been used?
How exactly would body armor be the deciding factor in a non nuclear one on one war between our two countries? I asked you and that is not the answer. A two year old knows the answer that though. That has nothing to do with who is in a better position sans nukes militarily.
Takes more than a google search and watching Rambo movies to know about war- go back to the kiddie pool.
Takes more than snippets from MSNBC on what Bush didn't do way back when to protect our troops than to be able to talk about the issue we are discussing now. I have facts and you have shown nothing. Stop postponing and talk.
Hero you are right, there are many factors to look into when breaking the number down.
Money management! Lets not forget about all the billions spent on non combat expenses and contracts like HALIBURTON, you 'member grape! Maybe you have a chart comparing the pay difference between the two militaries, does Russia pay for schooling? Health care/medical- imagine that number with all the combat injuries physical/mental and their family members and housing for them. Law suits and operating costs of how many bases around the world. Chasing down terrorists throughout the world and running 2 wars.- I'm thinking that's not cheap.
See guy I already backed that up with a quote from professionals who have done the leg work. oh how convenient of you to forget.
first
Lol. Hopefully you never served in the military because you really would be a poor representative of such. The truth is this
"Nuclear weapons are for Russian people now much more important than decades ago," Arbatov said. "They are more important than during the Cold War times as a pillar of national security."
Moscow just published its own defense doctrine, and it reserves the use of tactical or strategic nuclear weapons if the very existence of Russia is threatened. This reveals one of the great paradoxes of nuclear weapons, Perkovich says.
"In a world where you take away everybody else's nuclear weapons and also the U.S. nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have this great advantage in conventional military capability," he said.
Russian leaders look at the U.S. advantage in advanced military technology, and they see nuclear weapons as the great equalizer.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125604693&ft=1&f=1001"
Next I already took wartime spending out of the equation, and thus what we pay Haliburton.
Thirdly that is yours to argue. I made my arguments and backed them up where is yours we see you're frustrated and are offering nothing. You've gone from Wah Wah I'm not talking to you to figure this and that. If that is a part of your argument YOU back it up.
I don't have all the answers, it would take some research, certainly more than a 2 minute google search and reading 1 or 2 small articles- you are a fucking clown doofy grape or whatever your name is!
Nice pie chart!
You are the military expert. You mean you can talk big but carry no stick? Back it up. Why talk nonsense instead of backing up what you say? The only clown is a man who would enter into an argument and not be willing to back up what he says. His words hold no weight. Yeah the pie chart was good but it is factual. Sorry the truth rubs you the wrong way so hard.
