"My fighter is better than your fighter threads"

I realize that its just an internet message board, and it is a lot of fun to research the various aspects that go into fighter/tactical performance. But aren’t a lot of the arguments being made kind of ridiculous? Some of the claims in recent threads have strained credulity.

To my mind the key factors affecting the true performance in a war not just technical capability of the airplane, but also:
-Pilot training
-Maintenance/reliability of planes and missiles
-Adequate support/technicians/fuel/parts/basing
-AWACS/satellite/sensor support
-Sufficient numbers of aircraft/force concentration
-Aerial refueling, and all that support that IT requires

For example, by many measures the Super Hornet can be bested by other extant fighters. But when considered in terms consonant with the six items listed above, I believe it is safe to say that it is 1)the most capable carrier fighter in the world, and 2) sufficiently capable of putting up one hell of a fight against many land based air forces. And I’m not saying that as a SH fanboy, just trying to cite an example.

Many countries can claim a technological achievement. How many can factually claim to be able to field those technologies effectively WRT the above listed six items?