PDA

View Full Version : Worlds Largest Army??



road kill
12-22-2010, 05:43 PM
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.

Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world - more men under arms than Iran; more than France and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.

But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in Minnesota and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. Larger than even China, which has only a mere 2.25 million.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

*************************************************
I love my country.
It's the Government that I'm afraid of.
God Bless America.

__________________________________________________ ______

RK

mjh345
12-22-2010, 06:19 PM
I believe that "home grown firepower" was a {the} factor for the Japanese ruling out even thinking about making any surprise attacks on the US mainland

charly_t
12-22-2010, 11:34 PM
Someone sent that to me a few days back. You know that doesn't even count us oldies who no long hunt so we don't buy a license. Can still pull a trigger though. And it was another lady who sent it to me and I would bet a good chunk of money that she and her husband both own guns. They are like me......sort of over the hill as far as a long walk to hunt.

david gibson
12-23-2010, 01:14 AM
sounds great on the surface, but what good do millions of rifles do against a nuclear attack???

so obama signs a treaty to limit our total number of weapons to the same as russia's. hmmmm...what about china? sure they only have a few now, but what limits them?..in my lifetime i have only seen russia and china together aligned against us, never one taking our side. so russia probably loves that their buddies in china have no restrictions.

in the good old days of Reagan we brought russia to their knees with our ability to bankrupt them in the arms race. now we are negotiating.

and i dont want to hear from the lefties that gw is to blame. the point is the nutless coward in the whitehouse right now signed the bill.

yeah - our shotguns and deer rifles are great defense these days....what a sobering thought for christmas......................................... .............

dnf777
12-23-2010, 06:01 AM
in the good old days of Reagan we brought russia to their knees with our ability to bankrupt them in the arms race. now we are negotiating.

.


Equally responsible for the USSR's financial demise was their stubborness is staying in drawn out conflicts in Afghanistan. Carter funded the mujahideen in an effort to sap the Ruskies, and it worked.

How's the war in Afghanistan going, by the way?

road kill
12-23-2010, 06:44 AM
Equally responsible for the USSR's financial demise was their stubborness is staying in drawn out conflicts in Afghanistan. Carter funded the mujahideen in an effort to sap the Ruskies, and it worked.

How's the war in Afghanistan going, by the way?
This is 100% correct.

It wasn't Reagan that defeated Russia, it was Afghanistan.
It will do the same to us.


RK

mjh345
12-23-2010, 09:16 AM
This is 100% correct.

It wasn't Reagan that defeated Russia, it was Afghanistan.
It will do the same to us.


RK
BINGO!!!!!

Joe S.
12-23-2010, 09:36 AM
sounds great on the surface, but what good do millions of rifles do against a nuclear attack???

so obama signs a treaty to limit our total number of weapons to the same as russia's. hmmmm...what about china? sure they only have a few now, but what limits them?..in my lifetime i have only seen russia and china together aligned against us, never one taking our side. so russia probably loves that their buddies in china have no restrictions.

in the good old days of Reagan we brought russia to their knees with our ability to bankrupt them in the arms race. now we are negotiating.

and i dont want to hear from the lefties that gw is to blame. the point is the nutless coward in the whitehouse right now signed the bill.

yeah - our shotguns and deer rifles are great defense these days....what a sobering thought for christmas......................................... .............

How many nuclear weapons does it take to destroy life on earth as we currently understand it? Who wins that type of war? Think it through to a logical end...free your mind, the rest will follow.

Your concern is understandable on the surface but if you understand MAD policy, it doesn't pass the logic test. There are more than enough nuclear weapons to share with those nation-states that want a nuclear exchange, with some left over.

You suggest that Russia may be glad China has no limits on its nuclear weapons. Really? Think about that for a bit...

It is ok to treat former enemies with respect and deference, hell, they might even become great friends as time goes by...England, Germany, Japan, Spain...ok...maybe not France so much but they are better than an enemy.

Relax, David, it isn't the nation-state with the nukes that cause concern as much as it is the non-state actors that get their hands on a loose nuke or the material to make an IND...that really keeps people up at night.

E=MC2 Regards,

Joe S.

BrianW
12-23-2010, 09:40 AM
Equally responsible for the USSR's financial demise was their stubborness is staying in drawn out conflicts in Afghanistan. Carter funded the mujahideen in an effort to sap the Ruskies, and it worked.

How's the war in Afghanistan going, by the way?

Point to ponder:
"If" we hadn't supported the "muj/freedom fighters" , there may have been no OBL/terrorists left for 9/11 and your last question could be moot. :confused:
Unintended consequences regards.

dnf777
12-23-2010, 10:06 AM
Point to ponder:
"If" we hadn't supported the "muj/freedom fighters" , there may have been no OBL/terrorists left for 9/11 and your last question could be moot. :confused:
Unintended consequences regards.

Absolutely. That has been pondered ad nauseaum already.
Makes you wonder about who we're selling arms to today.
I'm quite sure some of the munitions being used in IEDs are stamped "made in USA" on them.

But to say there may be no bin Laden is like Hew's analogy that if the Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane.....

road kill
12-23-2010, 10:08 AM
Absolutely. That has been pondered ad nauseaum already.
Makes you wonder about who we're selling arms to today.
I'm quite sure some of the munitions being used in IEDs are stamped "made in USA" on them.

But to say there may be no bin Laden is like Hew's analogy that if the Wright brothers didn't invent the airplane.....

Yep, we know GE trades with Iran.;-)

Also "made in France" and "made in Germany" and "made in Russia."


RK

mjh345
12-23-2010, 10:55 AM
How many nuclear weapons does it take to destroy life on earth as we currently understand it? Who wins that type of war? Think it through to a logical end...free your mind, the rest will follow.

Your concern is understandable on the surface but if you understand MAD policy, it doesn't pass the logic test. There are more than enough nuclear weapons to share with those nation-states that want a nuclear exchange, with some left over.

You suggest that Russia may be glad China has no limits on its nuclear weapons. Really? Think about that for a bit...

It is ok to treat former enemies with respect and deference, hell, they might even become great friends as time goes by...England, Germany, Japan, Spain...ok...maybe not France so much but they are better than an enemy.

Relax, David, it isn't the nation-state with the nukes that cause concern as much as it is the non-state actors that get their hands on a loose nuke or the material to make an IND...that really keeps people up at night.

E=MC2 Regards,

Joe S.

Joe, quit making sense and being logical.
This is POTUS, no room for that here

Joe S.
12-23-2010, 01:05 PM
Point to ponder:
"If" we hadn't supported the "muj/freedom fighters" , there may have been no OBL/terrorists left for 9/11 and your last question could be moot. :confused:
Unintended consequences regards.

...AND in order to get to the muj/freedom fighters we had to turn a blind eye towards the Pakistan nuclear program which, under the leadership of A. Q. Khan, has been responsible for near every KNOWN nuclear proliferation effort in the world.

Now, take the next step...

Unintended Consequences Indeed Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
12-23-2010, 01:08 PM
Joe, quit making sense and being logical.
This is POTUS, no room for that here

LOL...I am sorry. Please forgive me.

I'll Try And Do Better Next Time Regards,

Joe S.

Uncle Bill
12-23-2010, 08:05 PM
The state of Wisconsin has gone an entire deer hunting season without someone getting killed. That's great. There were over 600,000 hunters.

Allow me to restate that number. Over the last two months, the eighth largest army in the world - more men under arms than Iran; more than France and Germany combined - deployed to the woods of a single American state to help keep the deer menace at bay.

But that pales in comparison to the 750,000 who are in the woods of Pennsylvania this week. Michigan's 700,000 hunters have now returned home. Toss in a quarter million hunters in Minnesota and it is literally the case that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. Larger than even China, which has only a mere 2.25 million.

The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting -- it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

*************************************************
I love my country.
It's the Government that I'm afraid of.
God Bless America.

__________________________________________________ ______

RK


IMHBFWDAO, I think the provider of this info missed the real point that he should have made...namely aimed at the gun control yin-yangs among us. (not you RK, your just the messenger)

I mean the hunters in the state of Wisconsin should be proud of that accomplishment. Don't know how many deaths there were in the other named states, but with all those guns in the field, I'll bet there were fewer than auto deaths, or deaths by other accidents during this same time frame.

As to the reference to being a larger army than some other multiple of countries, I've never looked at needing my guns for that purpose. But I have had the need cross my mind of their necessity to protect myself from my own government, especially when it's masquerading as the current oligarchy.

UB

david gibson
12-23-2010, 11:21 PM
How many nuclear weapons does it take to destroy life on earth as we currently understand it? Who wins that type of war? Think it through to a logical end...free your mind, the rest will follow.

Your concern is understandable on the surface but if you understand MAD policy, it doesn't pass the logic test. There are more than enough nuclear weapons to share with those nation-states that want a nuclear exchange, with some left over.

You suggest that Russia may be glad China has no limits on its nuclear weapons. Really? Think about that for a bit...

It is ok to treat former enemies with respect and deference, hell, they might even become great friends as time goes by...England, Germany, Japan, Spain...ok...maybe not France so much but they are better than an enemy.

Relax, David, it isn't the nation-state with the nukes that cause concern as much as it is the non-state actors that get their hands on a loose nuke or the material to make an IND...that really keeps people up at night.

E=MC2 Regards,

Joe S.

well i rest so much easier now that you have it all figured out. thanks!

what were our leaders thinking when they thought we needed so many. they were really dumb.

here's an alternative viewpoint.

http://www.usni.org/vice-admiral-obama-was-outmaneuvered-russians-start

you guys are not only smarter than a 5th grader, you are smarter than a vice admiral... ;-)

"“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”"

"“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”"

mjh345
12-24-2010, 10:00 AM
David, I admittedly didn't read your link, however if you or Mr. Miller think the Reagan bankruptcy analogy of the 1980's still applies then you haven't been paying attention.
In the 80's the USSR was involved in protracted, expensive war in Afghanistan that was a great strain on their treasury. Thanks to your boy GWB, that shoe is squarely on the other foot, with the additional entanglement of Iraq thrown in. Additionally, GWB in spite of inheriting the largest budget surplus in history, he promptly turned those into repeated record budget deficits. Obama has continued this fiscal insanity in his first 2 years.

So I would have to ask you and Mr. Miller in light of these facts, whom do you think would be the last man standing if the U.S.A, Russia, and China got into a protracted arms race designed to bankrupt the others?

I doubt the Chinese would be willing buy our chits or IOU's in that scenario, don't you?