Replies

Well I have to admit to you and the other posters that I was making the case that our capabilities, for a variety of very qualified reasons, is incredible.

In fact, it really is just stupid to go up against the USA unless you have a political strategy.

In terms of winning the one key factor in all confrontations is “The will to win”.

There is a saying “The early bird always gets the worm. But will take a brutal beating and go home hungry when confronted by the hungry bird”.

The message being, if you are hungry enough, you will beat sleep walkers and people of casual skill.

Why? You are focused on a goal and committed to achieving it, no matter what.

The key is desire to win. Think Rocky.

Obama is disjointed, discombobulated, panty waist. He continues to extol his virtue of not winning. That is, winning is not the goal, when he disusses Afghanistan.

This is an important “tell” and exposes America for it’s lack of a leader who has no desire to win. The reasons don’t matter, he is not a person that want to win but, desires to exist and give flowery speeches that make him feel good.

So you and the other posters are correct. He is not capable of winning as it is not a core requirement for him in any competitive engagement.

Except when he is climbing his personal corporate ladder.

For much of the Cold War, the Soviet strategy seemed to involve patiently expanding their sphere of influence, supporting insurrection and revolution wherever they could, trying to ride the edge of what they could get away with without provoking a US military response. Much of their effort involved funding groups and individuals within the US, for the purpose of influencing and controlling opinion.

The purpose of the military is to be an effective tool that your government can use to accomplish its political objectives, to enforce its will upon an opposing entity. I think China is not going to try going toe-to-toe against us in a conventional military sense. They have other options they can take to accomplish their political objectives.

One option that has concerned me for a while is the level of corruption in our political establishment. Why spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop something that can match our F-22, when by spending a tiny fraction of that in "contributions" they can induce our politicians to kill our own program? Do you doubt that a working majority of our congress can be bought for a few billions of dollars?