[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

So, if the proof’s in the pudding, which is a more representative case for you: the various Indian - Pakistani conflicts since 1971 or the various engagements of the U.S. against our various 3rd world adversaries (as listed by Spetsnaz) over the same period?

[spetznaz]

The fact his only response was 'you are a Kenyan nah nah nah nah-nah nah' shows the limits of his facts (and his thinking). I'd say the experience of the Indians vs the Pakistanis (especially how half of Pakistan was converted into Bangladesh) and the Iraqis vs Iranians provides more of a peer to peer analysis than the pounding of the Iraqis (or other amazingly 'powerful' countries like Grenada and Somalia) by a qualitatively and quantitatively superior force. I also believe he takes my saying that US equipment is superior in aggregate to competing foreign systems (eg Russian, Israeli, European, etc) as meaning the foreign systems are crap. That shows an inability to think beyond binary ...where X being better means Y is crap, when in the real world X being better can still have Y being good. He took my saying that American equipment is better (it is) to meaning foreign analogues are crap (they are not ....Arlington says so). Fortunately most adults let go of that sort of binary thinking in late middleschool.

Finally, I put more credence into the investment of the US into cutting edge systems and strategies over him/her/it. The investment of the US into super weapons like the Raptor (to maintain a definitive edge over Russian fighters that were expected then and are only starting to come now), the Seawolf (edge over submarines expected then and coming now), B2 (abilityto penetrate sophisticated IADS), etc, show preparation against foreign capability. If it was crap they'd just maintain equipment necessary to defeat 'powerful' countries like Panama and Afghanistan and not bother with pathetic weaklings like China and Russia.

Anyways, during the cold war there was debate between A-10 and Apache crews ....about which system would survive longer if the balloon ever went up and the Soviets came streaming across the Fulda Gap. I know many here think foreign systems are crap, and that any attempt to inject logic is 'being a Ruskie lover,' but facts are facts. The fact is the US has superior weaponry. That's a fact. The fact is foreign systems are not crap. That's a fact. The fact is the US has defeated FAR WEAKER countries decisively. That's a fact. The fact is a country like India, using Soviet weaponry, has defeated a PEER COUNTRY like Pakistan (leading to the loss of half of Pakistan) even though Pakistan had US equipment and advisors. Which is a more telling metric? An NBA team defeating a kindergarten school, or two college basketball teams playing each other? Who should brag more?