Oh, MY APOLOGIES, Mr. IQ of 152....
In modern warfare, numbers do not matter as much as they used to. If the US and China were to REALLY go head-to-head in some third-party's territory (for instance, Taiwan), the US would win. There's simply no question about it. Same goes for Russia (this is assuming no one went nuclear).
Your "one man vs. seven" analogy is laughable in this case. It simply does not apply to the argument of whether the US or China is stronger. The United States outclasses China on almost every level. Of course one man with a high-tech rifle would lose to seven men with a low-tech rifle; what's that got to do with this discussion? By your logic, whoever has the highest active troop strength would win a war. So I guess that means North Korea is a superpower, huh? After 9/11, the US sent a relatively small force into Afghanistan, and yet we wiped out an entire Army. One Daisy Cutter bomb eliminated thousands of Taliban soldiers (many of whom, incidentally, were probably carrying Kalashnikovs).
As far as my failure to mention the rest of your post is concerned -- I did not do so because I don't have an argument there. I don't have any particular objection to the foreign policy of George W. Bush. It's his DOMESTIC policy that irks me. Whether or not his little adventure in Iraq will work out remains to be seen. At this point, it's a stricly academic argument.
And "years of study"??? It happens that I spent YEARS studying Eastern Europe, with a heavy emphasis on Russia, in particular. You want to get into Russia, bring it on.
Last edited by kingdumbass; 14-08-2006 at 10:26 AM.