4 ms·

But it is #1 in military might. So, its the greatest

• vacri 10y ago
  Mightiest is not necessarily greatest.
  • return0 10y ago
    History would suggest otherwise.
    • vacri 10y ago
      Really? The Mongols were fearsomely mighty, yet their empire lasted less than a hundred years and their culture spread nowhere. The USSR was a military superpower, yet it only lasted one human's lifetime, and it absolutely sucked to live there. Alexander the Great was stupendously powerful in a military sense, 'conquering the known world', yet his realms collapsed upon his death at only 33.
• jsemrau 10y ago
  you did not finish your sentence. Please allow me to correct. ---- But it is #1 in military might. So, its the greatest in military might. I would assume "greatest" should be measure by more than one dimension. I think we can agree that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer in the world, if he would have been slow or small despite having a killer punch one can argue he would not have been the greatest.
• stangeek 10y ago
  ...as evidenced by their numerous successes whenever they have intervened in outside theaters for the past 50 years... ?
• CalRobert 10y ago
  It's a shame they had to funnel the apostrophe budget to the military, though.