# The Worlds Largest Army



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

* American's Hunters*

[YOUTUBE] ?v=-XjSSUC8IlY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

I don't plan to!


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Bloomberg's bloomers in a bunch organization have a faction of their anti gun lobby attempting to outlaw sport hunting in many states as one of their efforts to disarm the U.S. populace by eliminating what they claim to be the primary use of shotguns and rifles.

Fortunately voters are opposing Bloomberg's anti 2nd Amendment effort and money on a number of fronts.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke who during his first term of office did PSAs requesting Milwaukee County residents to take home defense weapon courses he offered and to arm themselves due to long response times to 911 calls to his department won the democratic primary defeating the Bloomberg organization backed opponent despite being greatly outspent in campaign funding by Bloomy and his minions which as I recall include the mayor of Milwaukee.

I have also read reports that not only is Sheriff Clarke's effort to responsibly and legally arm private citizens to protect themselves, call 911 and how to interact with the deputies when they arrive has not only proven effective, a number of citizens are also signing on to be trained by Sheriff Academy certified instructors as non-paid reserve deputies to help strengthen his budget strapped department.

This state has an amendment on the November ballot protecting sports hunting and fishing worded in such a way to effectively render efforts by the anti 2nd Amendment front moot in a number of firearm and ammunition issues.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

There are a whole mess of that nolonger gun hunt, we use a Bow.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Real leaders don't try to disarm their people
We need to elect real leaders, not the self serving hypocrites who now hold our highest offices.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Citizens with guns is why Japan feared the thought of invading the US...


----------



## PrettyPaisley (May 18, 2007)

The question is, though ... do they have the gumption to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done? Or has processed foods, medically prescribed drugs, fluoride in the water numbed common sense? It would appear so ... as we cling to "waiting until the next election". Nevermind all those who willingly stand in line to register and beg permission.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

PP, I think they would. Now we need to get them to stop voteing for the party that want's to take them.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

You do realize that China has more men of military service age 19 - 49 than the US has people?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

For once I have to agree with Deke. You don't have the largest army in the world, China does. That video is just a lot chest-thumping propaganda.

China already has nearly twice the number of both active and reserve military and paramilitary personnel that America does, and India and Korea have approximately the same number as America, give or take a few hundred thousand more or less.

Having a lot of guns in one country doesn't make an army. It's just a lot of guns. Gun ownership and knowing how to hunt does not make a person worthy as a soldier or capable of being in an army, not even a wannabe pseudo-soldier has what it takes. Military training, physical health and ability and the right kind of mind is required as well as military leaders to keep them all organized and maintaining a single purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Well how many chinese homes have guns. I bet any home within 1 mile of me has enough guns to arm any family of 8 that dosen't have a gun.
I do not know of any person,not one I can think of that would not shoot the enemy if it came on our soil.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

7thswan said:


> Well how many chinese homes have guns. I bet any home within 1 mile of me has enough guns to arm any family of 8 that dosen't have a gun.
> I do not know of any person,not one I can think of that would not shoot the enemy if it came on our soil.


Sure, but so what? I can say the same thing of my own friends and neighbours. That still doesn't make us all into an efficient army with proper military training.

And who cares about how many Chinese homes have guns? Are you planning on invading them and killing them?

That's not the point.

I think it's a huge mistake for people to make videos and post propaganda about how many guns the people of a nation own, and to boast about how that makes them into a big army. If people have to boast about something like that to the rest of the world then to other countries it means there's something wrong with the braggarts and that they're feeling insecure. It also means it's a threat to the rest of the world and that they are not trust worthy. Who can trust somebody that is chest thumping and making threats to them?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Sure, but so what? I can say the same thing of my own friends and neighbours. That still doesn't make us all into an efficient army with proper military training.
> 
> And who cares about how many Chinese homes have guns? Are you planning on invading them and killing them?
> 
> ...


oh geez :facepalm: please quit agreeing with me. 

It certainly sounds like someone has feelings of insecurity, but it isn't those who made the vid.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> oh geez :facepalm: please quit agreeing with me.
> 
> It certainly sounds like someone has feelings of insecurity, but it isn't those who made the vid.


Sorry, but I have to agree with you again. There are indeed other people that have feelings of insecurity about the threats and posturing that America poses and people like that won't care about how many guns American homes possess. If their insecurities get the better of them you can count on it they will NOT be retaliating against the ego boosting posturing by putting their own boots on American ground, but will use more insidious means. Then how useful will all those guns be to homeowners when they're fighting an insidious enemy that isn't even visible to shoot at?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Sure, but so what? I can say the same thing of my own friends and neighbours. That still doesn't make us all into an efficient army with proper military training.
> 
> And who cares about how many Chinese homes have guns? Are you planning on invading them and killing them?
> 
> ...


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Well, all I can say is I know WAY too many good ole boy backwoods ******* hunters that would be so proud to have a trophy wall with 76 terrorists heads hanging on it... 

If you made it an unlicensed open season, I'd rather be a terrorist in some other place than the US...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> Well, all I can say is I know WAY too many good ole boy backwoods ******* hunters that would be so proud to have a trophy wall with 76 terrorists heads hanging on it...
> 
> If you made it an unlicensed open season, I'd rather be a terrorist in some other place than the US...


So true. And who cares how many MAY have guns in China Thats not the point at all.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Seems like a moot point, since the only attacks that will ever be made aginst the U.S. will either be nuclear or terrorist, neither of which will be dependent on the total number of guns and the citizen holding them.

Plus, just because one can hunt, doesn't necessarily make them soldier.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

plowjockey said:


> Plus, just because one can hunt, doesn't necessarily make them soldier.


Nope, they may not be a soldier, but they sure have a lot of patience.. dressing out in the most realistic camo you could want, that matches THEIR woods, not a random government decided pattern... then climbing the highest trees with the best blinds in them.. then waiting hours on end to just see something.... much less get something to shoot... Then don't forget how proud of a shot they are... They don't spray and pray...

Body count is the hunter's pride.. and they know how to wait to be patient and get the best...


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Seems like a moot point, since the only attacks that will ever be made aginst the U.S. will either be nuclear or terrorist, neither of which will be dependent on the total number of guns and the citizen holding them.
> 
> Plus, just because one can hunt, doesn't necessarily make them soldier.


How many thousand x military you think is around with guns . Lot of those at the Alamo weren't soldiers by some peoples standards :hammer:

This ol boy wasn't a soldier either and only had a single shot rifle but look how many kills he racked up 
https://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/bookreview/jack-hinson-s-one-man-war-civil-war-sniper

Got a neighbor shoots a big fifty you know what that gun will do at 1,000 yards . :thumb:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

simi-steading said:


> Nope, they may not be a soldier, but they sure have a lot of patience.. dressing out in the most realistic camo you could want, that matches THEIR woods, not a random government decided pattern... then climbing the highest trees with the best blinds in them.. then waiting hours on end to just see something.... much less get something to shoot... Then don't forget how proud of a shot they are... They don't spray and pray...
> 
> Body count is the hunter's pride.. and they know how to wait to be patient and get the best...


Hey Simi, what you're talking about is what I call posturing. What do you call it?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Sorry, but I have to agree with you again. There are indeed other people that have feelings of insecurity about the threats and posturing that America poses and people like that won't care about how many guns American homes possess. If their insecurities get the better of them you can count on it they will NOT be retaliating against the ego boosting posturing by putting their own boots on American ground, but will use more insidious means. Then how useful will all those guns be to homeowners when they're fighting an insidious enemy that isn't even visible to shoot at?


OK, in addition to feelings of insecurity, some folks also apparently suffer from feelings of inferiority.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> OK, in addition to feelings of insecurity, some folks also apparently suffer from feelings of inferiority.


Bingo! Again we are in agreement. Isn't it a wonder!

Nobody who is already feeling insecure wants to have their noses rubbed into their insecurities and inferiority complexes. To do so is a challenge to them to then man up and go on the offensive and put the egotistical ones on the defensive. 

I strongly believe that it's a HUGE mistake for people to let their ego and *braggadocio *to get the better of them and allow them to let their real enemies or even imagined enemies to know what kind of back up they have. They are stabbing their ownselves in the back by doing so.

Definitions of braggadocio: https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en-...ell=1&ei=z8ooVNT9OsPkoASry4HAAg&ved=0CBAQBSgA

In other words, shut up about whatever is it you think you have going for you.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Seems like a moot point, since the only attacks that will ever be made aginst the U.S. will either be nuclear or terrorist, neither of which will be dependent on the total number of guns and the citizen holding them.
> 
> Plus, just because one can hunt, doesn't necessarily make them soldier.


True, but it DOES make them snipers! And most are good at it! Millions are also ex - military.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Hey Simi, what you're talking about is what I call posturing. What do you call it?


I'd call it the truth!


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Bingo! Again we are in agreement. Isn't it a wonder!
> 
> Nobody who is already feeling insecure wants to have their noses rubbed into their insecurities and inferiority complexes. To do so is a challenge to them to then man up and go on the offensive and put the egotistical ones on the defensive.
> 
> ...


You really don't think most especially xmilitary and a lot of gun owners are so stupid to think that TPTB don't already know what they would likely face . Some have no idea what the 2nd amendment is for .If in the old days Japan knew these things would one be so stupid to think NASA would know less .What other reason is there that the loonies on the left hasn't all ready come for the guns of the people . 

Some these folks need to ride threw the hills of WV, Tn or even Ky and just see how hard it would be to root those hill folks out if they don't want to move . Just asking directions in some places with a Yankee accent could get you lost for a while and that is nowadays :thumb:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Seems like a moot point, since the only attacks that will ever be made aginst the U.S. will either be nuclear or terrorist, neither of which will be dependent on the total number of guns and the citizen holding them.
> 
> Plus, just because one can hunt, doesn't necessarily make them soldier.


Maybe it won't matter the total number of guns, but just like in the Oklahoma beheading, it might just matter that one citizen, with one gun, trained, ready, and willing to act, steps up and stops further violence at the critical moment. 

That could not happen in Canada, UK, Australia, and most of the rest of the world.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Sorry, but I have to agree with you again. There are indeed other people that have feelings of insecurity about the threats and posturing that America poses and people like that won't care about how many guns American homes possess. If their insecurities get the better of them you can count on it they will NOT be retaliating against the ego boosting posturing by putting their own boots on American ground, but will use more insidious means. Then how useful will all those guns be to homeowners when they're fighting an insidious enemy that isn't even visible to shoot at?


The insecurity is of those who hate America and the unique and exceptional place it holds in the world. The insecure live and prosper under the protections the US provides. The insecure refuse to pay for their own defense, while criticizing the US for footing the bill.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Thanks for the laugh. Hunters are not soldiers. No one is shooting back at them. Except other hunters of course since 1000 people are killed or injured every year by negligent hunters. Friendly Fire? 

It is a very different experience when the "enemy" you are facing has an equal chance to kill you.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> Thanks for the laugh. Hunters are not soldiers. No one is shooting back at them. Except other hunters of course since 1000 people are killed or injured every year by negligent hunters. Friendly Fire?
> 
> It is a very different experience when the "enemy" you are facing has an equal chance to kill you.


When you stop laughing you can go to Roadkings neck of the woods and pick up a easy hundred thousand dollars or so :sing: One lone guy has a heard of cops scared poopless .It would take a real misguided person to think it would be easy to root out a well hid hunter in a territory the hunter knows . :hammer: I knew a solider that never left the states so why would he have any advantage over a 12 year old boy raised in the Appalachian mountains :rotfl:

I am proud liberals think it would be easy to disarm hunters


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

To compare an army made up of soldiers to an "army" made up of hunters IS risible. Not to mention insulting to the military. It isn't just about being able to shoot and stalk. I can shoot and everyone hunts where I live and they would never make an army. Certainly not an impromptu one and one without training. Just as in WW1 and WW2 all those who joined up (including hunters) had to be trained properly in order to make up a military, a fighting force. Guerrilla forces had to be trained as well. Or do you think the Vietnam Vets were just amateurs?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

emdeengee said:


> Or do you think the Vietnam Vets were just amateurs?


Most of them were exactly that... when they got off the plane in Nam. Those that survived are the ones we now call "Vets" and of course had quite a bit more "on the job training". Many of them are now hunters.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> ... you can go to Roadkings neck of the woods and *pick up a easy hundred thousand dollars or so* :sing: One lone guy has a heard of cops scared poopless .It would take a real misguided person to think it would be easy to root out a well hid hunter in a territory the hunter knows ....


How? Are they offering a reward for information leading to his capture by police - or - are they offering a reward for his capture by bounty hunters willing to go into the bush looking for him?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Most of them were exactly that... when they got off the plane in Nam. Those that survived are the ones we now call "Vets" and of course had quite a bit more "on the job training". Many of them are now hunters.


Are you saying there was no boot camp and basic training first before shipping them off to VN?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

The soldiers were young and inexperienced but they were trained and those who were specialists were very well trained indeed. And yes the ones who survived are the vets as are the ones who survived the world wars. Many did get extra on the job training but many were in and out due to wounds and illness very quickly. Does not take away from their training. Soldiers get injured and die in war. 

A soldier who is now a hunter (or was a hunter before) is still a soldier. A hunter who was never a soldier is still not a soldier.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> The soldiers were young and inexperienced but they were trained and those who were specialists were very well trained indeed. And yes the ones who survived are the vets as are the ones who survived the world wars. Many did get extra on the job training but many were in and out due to wounds and illness very quickly. Does not take away from their training. Soldiers get injured and die in war.
> 
> A soldier who is now a hunter (or was a hunter before) is still a soldier. A hunter who was never a soldier is still not a soldier.


What about the ones for the other side? History is full of untrained forces rising up and over-coming better equipped and better trained fighting forces.

They generally do have one thing in common, the battles are fought on their home turf, and they are defending their families and homes from harm.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Nate_in_IN said:


> What about the ones for the other side? History is full of untrained forces rising up and over-coming better equipped and better trained fighting forces.
> 
> They generally do have one thing in common, the battles are fought on their home turf, and they are defending their families and homes from harm.


Yes, what about them? That was in a time in history when people had less sophisticated weapons and less sophisticated technology such as airplanes, drones, missiles, bombs and biological weapons.

If you had 600 million guns in the homes of the people what use would those guns be to anyone if an enemy uses biological weapons against you on your home turf?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

And all this time, I was thinking that American kid video gamers were the world's largest army.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Yes, what about them? That was in a time in history when people had less sophisticated weapons and less sophisticated technology such as airplanes, drones, missiles, bombs and biological weapons.
> 
> If you had 600 million guns in the homes of the people what use would those guns be to anyone if an enemy uses biological weapons against you on your home turf?


Depends upon the type of war. If you are considering a nuclear holocaust where there is no occupation attempt then I agree it won't be much use.

If troops are moving along using chemical weapons ahead to eliminate all life it guns will be of little use.

If that same force is only eliminating major metropolitan areas and not devastating all life then the gun becomes a factor. Hide the gun, act like a nice conquered person, then shoot them in the back as they pass.

Let me ask this. Why have we not alreay won the war in Afghanistan 10 times over? We have been sending our best technology into the area for years. We have not won the war yet because we have not extinguished all armed resistance. It takes a very cold heart indeed to use that technology to eliminate an entire populace.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Depends upon the type of war. If you are considering a nuclear holocaust where there is no occupation attempt then I agree it won't be much use.
> 
> If troops are moving along using chemical weapons ahead to eliminate all life it guns will be of little use.
> 
> ...


You just answered your own question.

If Nation A makes a big deal about revealing to Nation B how much more fire power and other defensive systems it has than Nation B, then it leaves Nation B with no alternative but to be cold hearted and use a different and perhaps more subtle means to commit not only genocide but also xenocide.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Are you saying there was no boot camp and basic training first before shipping them off to VN?


Yep, and how much do you think a feller can teach raw recruits about staying alive in a combat situation during that amount of time? Most of boot camp is just getting them off their duffs and used to following orders. Very little real military training involved at that point. Now, after they had survived six months to a year, maybe two, and got some "training" under their belts they became soldiers, but ask any Viet Nam vet how well trained and prepared he was when he first landed.... All I have ever heard from any vet has been "not at all".


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Yep, and how much do you think a feller can teach raw recruits about staying alive in a combat situation during that amount of time? Most of boot camp is just getting them off their duffs and used to following orders. Very little real military training involved at that point. Now, after they had survived six months to a year, maybe two, and got some "training" under their belts they became soldiers, but ask any Viet Nam vet how well trained and prepared he was when he first landed.... All I have ever heard from any vet has been "not at all".


That's disappointing. So .... was this a result of more over-confidence? Was it a case of the government and military leaders drinking the kool-aide too? Were they saying to themselves "these boys have guns at home and they know how to hunt on their own home turf so they will be a great army" ????


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

About the most difference I see between soldiers and hunters is, good hunters are trained and self taught to be very good shots, stalkers, how to read signs, and pay attention.. 

Foot soldiers were trained to not question authority, how to take orders, and how to hold a gun and pull the trigger.... 

Huge difference.... The military has thrown bodies at problems for years, so the training isn't as good as you'd like to think, until you start getting into specialists... 

Hunters may not have been trained to follow orders and march in step, but I can promise you most hunters have become better shots than most soldiers, and shoot a whole lot more.. 

You know, it was the back wood farmers and hunters that taught the military about snipers, who in turn taught the hunters how to be better snipers... It was also the farmers that ran off the British in the country sides... Especially in the Appalachians. They knew how to hide behind trees and pick off soldiers... The soldiers were fish in a barrel.. 

History has shown many times that hunters and farmers have made some the most formidable foes..

Just curious... Of all that are knocking hunters and say soldiers are better, how many rounds of ammo a year do you think the majority of military members fire? It is a very small number of soldiers that are firing the majority of the ammo in the big picture... 

My brother is a "soldier", a military member... He's never had to fire a gun for his job... It was me that took him out and handed him a military rifle and taught him how to load it and how to shoot it.

I'd love for you to ask my Dad about what kind of training he got... He was in Nam... He was a radar operator. He was in places he had to carry a gun, and heard small arms fire, but never had to fire a gun in war... but he said about all they taught him, being in the AF, was how to use the gun... not how to be a proficient soldier... He said he was terrified of the thought of having to get in a fire fight... Sadly, I know too many hunters that would get a huge rush of getting into a fire fight..

I can bet you could take a farm boy that knows how to run dozers and excavators and stuff like that, and he'll figure out how to drive a tank... The difference with the military is, they train to fight as a huge entity with huge weapons, and communications, and so on.... Think the Borg... That is the modern military.... 

*The original US military was made up of all the individuals, hunters, and farmers that were willing to pick up a gun.. And they kicked England all the way back to their island..*


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

In the Battle of New Orleans Farmers, Shopkeepers, Pirates, Outdoorsmen, Militia, and Andrew Jackson defeated the same crack Army who had defeated Napoleon.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> How many thousand x military you think is around with guns . Lot of those at the Alamo weren't soldiers by some peoples standards :hammer:
> 
> This ol boy wasn't a soldier either and only had a single shot rifle but look how many kills he racked up
> https://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/bookreview/jack-hinson-s-one-man-war-civil-war-sniper
> ...


Uh, didn't we lose that battle?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> Nope, they may not be a soldier, but they sure have a lot of patience.. dressing out in the most realistic camo you could want, that matches THEIR woods, not a random government decided pattern... then climbing the highest trees with the best blinds in them.. then waiting hours on end to just see something.... much less get something to shoot... Then don't forget how proud of a shot they are... They don't spray and pray...
> 
> Body count is the hunter's pride.. and they know how to wait to be patient and get the best...


So, we are going to be the world's larges army - of snipers? That ought to be pretty Militarily effective. 

Wonder how many qualify to join AARP?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> What about the ones for the other side? History is full of untrained forces rising up and over-coming better equipped and better trained fighting forces.
> 
> They generally do have one thing in common, the battles are fought on their home turf, and they are defending their families and homes from harm.


Afghanistan vs USSR is a case of just what you say. 

Afghanistan vs USA is a case of home turf, poorly armed, poorly trained rabble simply out lasting an outside force.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> True, but it DOES make them snipers! And most are good at it! Millions are also ex - military.


We have a highly efficient Military today? What is the percentage of personnel, that are snipers?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> That's disappointing. So .... was this a result of more over-confidence? Was it a case of the government and military leaders drinking the kool-aide too? Were they saying to themselves "these boys have guns at home and they know how to hunt on their own home turf so they will be a great army" ????


No, no, and no.

Are you really that ignorant of basic training or are you just being argumentative?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

How ever you want to look at it, I'll always put my money on a bunch of people with guns protecting their home turf over an invading Army that doesn't have half the heart in the fight..


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Most of them were exactly that... when they got off the plane in Nam. Those that survived are the ones we now call "Vets" and of course had quite a bit more "on the job training". Many of them are now hunters.


For sure, but can a 65, year old handle the very real rigors of war, as well as when they were 19?

I know some have nearly a total hearing loss. they can still hunt, but not sure if they should be put on guard duty.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> So, we are going to be the world's larges army - of snipers? That ought to be pretty Militarily effective.
> 
> Wonder how many qualify to join AARP?


For those that know...snipers are not only effective, but terrifying too! That's why liberals hate the military and hunters!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> For sure, but can a 65, year old handle the very real rigors of war, as well as when they were 19?
> 
> I know some have nearly a total hearing loss. they can still hunt, but not sure if they should be put on guard duty.


..........


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

simi-steading said:


> ... I can promise you most hunters have become better shots than most soldiers, and shoot a whole lot more..
> 
> [/B]


My best bud was a 27 year special forces soldier. Three tours in Afghan, a couple of dozen times in an out of Iraq for brief "visits" out in the countryside. He's fired 100's of 1000's more rounds than I have. But I never had a need to lay down suppressive fire, all my shots are meant to actually hit a specific target. 

In no way would I ever say I am more qualified in anyway to be a soldier than he is. If you want hand to hand combat, or to blow a bridge, or coordinate an attack leading 100 indigenous soldiers, he's your man. But when it comes to a quick draw competition with a concealed pistol or accuracy with a rifle at range, you better hand me the gun. 

I'm not a hunter, just a guy that understands if I ever have to defend the homestead or my family, I won't have the rest of an A-team backing me up, and I won't be carrying hundreds of rounds in loaded mags. I have to actually make my shots count, so I've spent countless hours practicing and training for situations that most soldiers don't have to consider.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm 50, and last time I went to play paintball was about 2 years ago.. No, it's not war, but I was playing with several guys that were Army, one that was a Marine, and several cops... We had a blast... I was told several times they couldn't believe how I could cover so well, but could pick people off left and right... I also got the comment from one how he hoped when he was my age, he could still get out and play that hard... He was 23... I put him out of the game twice, he never put me out.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> No, no, and no.
> 
> Are you really that ignorant of basic training or are you just being argumentative?


I am really ignorant about basic military training in any nation, not just that of the USA.

Back then during the Viet Nam war the only contact I had with Americans was with the draft dodgers that I associated with or dated occassionally. There was a lot of draft dodgers from the American south that came to this province because the warm west coast climate was more survivable for them as fugitives living out in the boonies. 

Of all the draft dodgers I met, not a single one of them had ever owned a gun, let alone knew how to use a gun. None of them were aggressive or warrior natured, all of them missed their homes and families and friends terribly, all of them were frightened of what the future held for them as draft dodgers. But they were even more frightened of the prospect of being sent to Viet Nam and being forced to kill or be killed over something they didn't believe in.

I felt sorry for those boys.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Uh, didn't we lose that battle?


Lost the battle yes due to the higher command trying to play gentleman :hammer:

But we an't lost the war yet :thumb:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Paumon said:


> How? Are they offering a reward for information leading to his capture by police - or - are they offering a reward for his capture by bounty hunters willing to go into the bush looking for him?


Said information leading to his capture,but I bet they would take him anyway you bring him to em :thumb:

Now why don't you just laugh your way into those hills find his tree tie a yellow ribbon on it then point it out to that heard of cops and collect your cash . You already know that guy is no soldier and can't shoot good enough to hit a barn if he was in it so no danger . :sing:

Only danger I see is the herd of cops might get a little jumpy should they hear a twig snap and put a few hundred shots somewhere in the surrounding area


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Said information leading to his capture,but I bet they would take him anyway you bring him to em :thumb:
> 
> Now why don't you just laugh your way into those hills find his tree tie a yellow ribbon on it then point it out to that heard of cops and collect your cash . You already know that guy is no soldier and can't shoot good enough to hit a barn if he was in it so no danger . :sing:
> 
> Only danger I see is the herd of cops might get a little jumpy should they hear a twig snap and put a few hundred shots somewhere in the surrounding area


Seriously, I doubt that guy is still in the vicinity there. He apparently had a long time to plan this whole debacle and the aftermath and it's been so long now that he's been on the loose I'm sure that he's long gone from there.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Seriously, I doubt that guy is still in the vicinity there. He apparently had a long time to plan this whole debacle and the aftermath and it's been so long now that he's been on the loose I'm sure that he's long gone from there.


Don't know but from some of Roadkings posts there is still enough cops around he could do well to open a doughnut shop :hysterical::hysterical:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> How ever you want to look at it, I'll always put my money on a bunch of people with guns protecting their home turf over an invading Army that doesn't have half the heart in the fight..


Normally I would have to agree, but then I keep remembering how things went in this country in 65... 1865 that is.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

This ain't Hollywood, and to be honest I can't see any hand to hand knife fights in this scenerio. However, going up against an armed population who are familiar with their terrain and very experienced in the use of their firearms would be a logistical nightmare. 

An army of snipers is pretty much what you would be looking at. No frontal combat, just a well planned, long range shot into some unexpecting soldier. Shoot, disappear, a few days later, somewhere else, shoot again. Now multiply that by millions. Right now guys are taking game at 600+ yds. The bad guys are bigger then woodchucks. I think it would be an extremely effective force. It would also be totally decentralized with no given organization making it almost impossible to conquer or stop. It is also a big Country. Control would be impossible.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> This ain't Hollywood, and to be honest I can't see any hand to hand knife fights in this scenerio. However, going up against an armed population who are familiar with their terrain and very experienced in the use of their firearms would be a logistical nightmare.
> 
> An army of snipers is pretty much what you would be looking at. No frontal combat, just a well planned, long range shot into some unexpecting soldier. Shoot, disappear, a few days later, somewhere else, shoot again. Now multiply that by millions. Right now guys are taking game at 600+ yds. The bad guys are bigger then woodchucks. I think it would be an extremely effective force. It would also be totally decentralized with no given organization making it almost impossible to conquer or stop. It is also a big Country. Control would be impossible.


Kind of like, say, Afghanistan?


----------



## Trainwrek (Aug 23, 2014)

mmoetc said:


> Kind of like, say, Afghanistan?


Or Vietnam. Armed locals who are fighting in their home field using guerrilla tactics. Thats a nightmare for any army.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Yup, 1 fugitive has about 1000 LEOs tied up...from local to state to FBI, ATF, Marshals and even border control helis according to news (and eyes and ears). 
However, many of the non LEOs are heading into the woods on Saturday for the opening day of deer archery...yup, bunch of wimps around here...not.
Armed fugitive, believed to be booby trapping the woods scares the stuffing out of authorities, but us locals will take up our bows in search of dinner.

Matt


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

:hijacked: 
LOL Want to see what happens when the oppressors tell the locals they cant go in the woods ?
I think its gonna get interesting!

It might be just what the cops want though. They just grab a guy in the woods with a gun and show him off to the media.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

I have some pictures of my father and cohorts training with wooden rifles at the beginning of WWII. There were not enough real weapons in the government stockpiles to waste them on training. My father and many of his fellow enlistees grew up during the depression and I remember his stories of being given 5 shells for his single shot .22 and being sent out to get meat for the family. If he didn't come back with at least 5 kills he was the one who didn't eat. This training stood him better than any the army gave him as he fought his way from New Guinea to the Northern Phillipines.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I do believe that some people don't really know the Firepower that is in the hands of American citizens. And what is called The Civilian Army. Way more than a person thinks that is for sure. And these are not just hunters either. LOL 

[YOUTUBE]?v=A0CKq0xRu2k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

DEKE01 said:


> You do realize that China has more men of military service age 19 - 49 than the US has people?


 Yes and they have been known to send their Men into battle with out a weapon, just wait until the one in front of them is kill and pick up their weapon. 

big rockpile


----------



## bigjon (Oct 2, 2013)

come into our house-if ur lucky-we might bury u.....


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

bigjon said:


> come into our house-if ur lucky-we might bury u.....


I don't know why you would bury anyone. There is no sense in letting perfectly good pig chow go to waste.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Don't know about now, but 50 years ago about 15% of the Army was infantry, the rest "support".

Our basic training was 8 weeks, and we might have fired 200 rounds altogether in training, another 60 or so for qualification. If you were infantry you had another 8 weeks, with considerable more firing, but for the most part it was squad/platoon tactics and fieldcraft. Nobody was ready.

I spent 28 days in the hold of a ship with, among others, the "Scout Platoon" of the 3rd Brigade, 1st Cavalry. They were kids (literally) just out of infantry and jump school. All but one were dead 3 months later.

Unless they're multiple tour infantry, I'll take my "old" neighbors first any day.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Nate_in_IN said:


> What about the ones for the other side? History is full of untrained forces rising up and over-coming better equipped and better trained fighting forces.
> 
> They generally do have one thing in common, the battles are fought on their home turf, and they are defending their families and homes from harm.


And history is full of the opposite as well. Every occupied country in both world wars had an underground, militia, resistance and guerrilla fighters (including in Germany fighting against the Nazi) and they did inflict damage but the wars were won (or lost) by the military. 

War today is not just guns and roses. What our military and air forces can do to other countries can be done in reverse.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> And history is full of the opposite as well. Every occupied country in both world wars had an underground, militia, resistance and guerrilla fighters (including in Germany fighting against the Nazi) and they did inflict damage but the wars were won (or lost) by the military.
> 
> War today is not just guns and roses. What our military and air forces can do to other countries can be done in reverse.


I thought the point of the thread was about an armed populace being an issue for an invading army. I would hold that as a true statement. I would hazard to say that even the examples you list above where the underground resistance did not win the war they accomplished better kill ratios than did opposing troops along the front lines.

Now I agree a civilian who knows the territory and knows his weapon is still not going to cause much alarm to an ICBM with a nuclear war-head; but then again neither is the top Navy Seal with the latest model 50cal.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

emdeengee said:


> And history is full of the opposite as well. Every occupied country in both world wars had an underground, militia, resistance and guerrilla fighters (including in Germany fighting against the Nazi) and they did inflict damage but the wars were won (or lost) by the military.
> 
> War today is not just guns and roses. What our military and air forces can do to other countries can be done in reverse.


Is war also Metallica and Iron Maiden? 

You are right in that war is not just guns. Every country has guns. However, you are wrong about our military vs others. There is no other military in the world that can do what ours does. 

Sure, other air forces can drop bombs, but ours is the only one that can send planes from any point on earth, non stop to any other point on earth. Ours is the only military that can float first rate fighters and bombers to within a few miles of any country with a coastline. Ours is the only military that combines a fully integrated AWACS combat control system. Ours is the only military that can coordinate full time satellite view of almost any spot on earth. 

Ours is the only military that can send a fully equipped and supplied army to any other point on earth in a matter of weeks. Ours is the only military that can send a corps sized unit to any place on earth in a few days. 

If you were to count tanks and men and planes, Russia and China are the only two countries that can present a realistic threat to the USA but they lack the transport capability to move their men and equipment to our land. 

That's not to say we can spend ourselves into bankruptcy or that our politicians will run out of ways to lose wars.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Ours is the only military that can send a fully equipped and supplied army to any other point on earth in a matter of weeks. Ours is the only military that can send a corps sized unit to any place on earth in a few days.
> 
> If you were to count tanks and men and planes, Russia and China are the only two countries that can present a realistic threat to the USA but they lack the transport capability to move their men and equipment to our land.


REALLY? I don't think Putin Got the memo.
Im pretty sure that China and Britain don't believe it either.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

AmericanStand said:


> REALLY? I don't think Putin Got the memo.
> Im pretty sure that China and Britain don't believe it either.


:thumb: Agreed.

They know what their own capabilities are and what cards they have up their sleeves. They just don't feel compelled to do a lot of arrogant chest thumping to reveal it and give their game away.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> REALLY? I don't think Putin Got the memo.
> Im pretty sure that China and Britain don't believe it either.


Yes, they believe it. The premise under consideration is that the US can be invaded just like we can invade any other country. That is a false premise. 

The US has 5200 military transport aircraft - not even including the world's largest civilian fleet that could be commandeered in an emergency. That is more than the next 11 countries combined. They all fight wars near home, we stand ready to fight anywhere on the globe. 

China and Russia have 700+ each. Britain has 338. They do not have the capability to lift a large military force and transport it 10,000 miles to invade the US. 

You can come up with other far more believable premises such as the one envisioned in the movie Red Dawn, or an all out nuke war. I'm not saying there is not a way to cause great suffering to the USA, but the kind of attack that the US did to Iraq in Desert Storm, or the Allied invasion of Normandy in WW2, is not going to happen to the US anytime soon.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> :thumb: Agreed.
> 
> They know what their own capabilities are and what cards they have up their sleeves. They just don't feel compelled to do a lot of arrogant chest thumping to reveal it and give their game away.


Bull. 

The whole purpose of the may day parades are to show off Russian military capability and it has always been with the intent to exaggerate, not understate the capability. 

When it comes to large scale capabilities, like numbers of tanks, ships by type, nuke, etc, the world knows to a fairly fine level of detail what the capabilities are of each country. 

Google is your friend. You should try it.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

The Taliban is scared to death of a little girl, Go Malala Yousafzai!!!!!

There are more ways of fighting than who has the biggest guns. The children shall lead us.


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

That said, I just scored Ecodenfense; a Field Guide to Monkeywrenching at the local food bank thrift store for .50c. 

Treespiking is immoral to me. But I might learn a thing or two about heavy machinery.

BTW I live in a wonderful spicy soup of military, ******* loggers and anarchist organic farmers. It's been a blast, and you find the most curious things in the thrift stores!


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I know so many veterans who are 60+ years old that have two things in common. They don't like what is happening to the Country and they are absolute demons with a rifle. We are the most heavily armed society in the world. There are enough firearms in this Country to arm every man, woman, and child, plus. Remember, if you are active military, and the poop hits the fan, and you are sent to suppress the population do you ever think about who is suppressing your family while your gone? 

The civil war was North against South. We are talking about a totally different situation with no definite battle lines.

I think that a shooting war in the US is a pretty far stretch.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, they believe it. The premise under consideration is that the US can be invaded just like we can invade any other country.


:umno:



DEKE01 said:


> Ours is the only military that can send a fully equipped and supplied army to any other point on earth in a matter of weeks. Ours is the only military that can send a corps sized unit to any place on earth in a few days.
> 
> If you were to count tanks and men and planes, Russia and China are the only two countries that can present a realistic threat to the USA but they lack the transport capability to move their men and equipment to our land.



The reason I quoted the above is so that people would know it was THAT statement I was Challenging.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> :umno:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Help me out. When Emdengee, you, and Paumon said words indicating you believe that Russia, China, and Britain can invade us, that's what I was responding to. And I've shown why they can not, on a large scale invade. They lack the air and sea transport capacity to do so. We've got two great big moats surrounding the US, called the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean. It is hard to move men and material in large quantity necessary to do a wide scale attack on a country this big. If you think they can, tell us how. 

If what you are saying is that any country can send 100 or 1000 guys here to die at the hands of our citizens, soldiers, cops, etc, yeah, of course, what ever. 

If you want to dispute that ours is the only military that can send large forces to any other point on earth, go ahead. tell us how. No other country can do it. None.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> If you want to dispute that ours is the only military that can send large forces to any other point on earth, go ahead. tell us how. No other country can do it. None.


Well lets see Russia seems to have invaded The Crimea and a bit farther back Afghanistan, The UK threw a pretty good response at Argentina a few years ago and China ,? Well I don't think we should sell them sort either.
I just refuse to Hide my head in the sand.
Ive been in a few fights And I NEVER came out the worse for OVER estimating my opponent. But the opposite has put me in the hospital.:hammer:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> Well lets see Russia seems to have invaded The Crimea and a bit farther back Afghanistan, The UK threw a pretty good response at Argentina a few years ago and China ,? Well I don't think we should sell them sort either.
> I just refuse to Hide my head in the sand.
> Ive been in a few fights And I NEVER came out the worse for OVER estimating my opponent. But the opposite has put me in the hospital.:hammer:


I was specific, moving an army (more than 100,000 men and their equipment) in months or a corps (more than 40,000 men and their equipment) in days to any other point on the globe. No country other than the US can do that. 

For the Falklands War, the UK moved two brigades, maybe 10000 men and it stressed their military so much that they had to commandeer a civilian cruise ship. 

Yes, as I said, Russia has more men and tanks, etc than the US, but the premise was that another country could do to the US what we did in Afghan or Iraq. Yes, China and Russia and lots of countries can invade their neighbors, that is not in dispute. Not Russia, not China, not the UK, no one other than the US has the transport capacity to move hundreds of tanks and 100,000 men over oceans in a rapid manner. Remember, a friendly port is needed to unload tanks and equipment. No country today has the sort of Higgins Boats, (where the front end flops down and trucks and tanks can roll off onto an enemy beach) in any sort of meaningful quantity to do a beach invasion like you may remember from WW2. 

As I said before, there are ways other countries can hurt us, nukes, chemical, bio, or terror attacks. They could fly 100 planes with 200 men to 100 cities and create all sorts of havoc as long as they were not too interested in ever seeing those men live more than a week or two. They would have no fighter air support, and in modern warfare, without that you've got next to nothing. Heck, even one sniper in 10 big cities would cause all sorts of havoc. But again, that is not the same capability that the US has.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

So maybe if someone invades us they might be the one making the underestimation? I would never be a suicide bomber for 72 virgins but I could be one for my Grand daughter.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> So maybe if someone invades us they might be the one making the underestimation? I would never be a suicide bomber for 72 virgins but I could be one for my Grand daughter.


I think I know what you ment but boy that sounded gross at first.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> I was specific, moving an army (more than 100,000 men and their equipment) in months or a corps (more than 40,000 men and their equipment) in days to any other point on the globe. No country other than the US can do that.
> 
> For the Falklands War, the UK moved two brigades, maybe 10000 men and *it stressed their military so much that they had to commandeer a civilian cruise ship. *
> Yes, as I said, Russia has more men and tanks, etc than the US, but the premise was that another country could do to the US what we did in Afghan or Iraq. Yes, China and Russia and lots of countries can invade their neighbors, that is not in dispute. Not Russia, not China, not the UK, no one other than the US has the transport capacity to move hundreds of tanks and 100,000 men over oceans in a rapid manner. Remember, a friendly port is needed to unload tanks and equipment. No country today has the sort of Higgins Boats, (where the front end flops down and trucks and tanks can roll off onto an enemy beach) in any sort of meaningful quantity to do a beach invasion like you may remember from WW2.
> ...


 I don't think they stressed over using a civilian ship they just did it.
I cant see Russia or China stressing over it to much either.
So what you are saying is because they cant land a army on Manhattan with out a shot fired it wont work?
In most places it would be far easier. For the USA they might be a little sneaky, say land in Mexico first. You know just to help control the border. Then after bombing the USA cross over the border.
You know like we did in Iraq?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I don't think they stressed over using a civilian ship they just did it.
> I cant see Russia or China stressing over it to much either.
> So what you are saying is because they cant land a army on Manhattan with out a shot fired it wont work?
> In most places it would be far easier. For the USA they might be a little sneaky, say land in Mexico first. You know just to help control the border. Then after bombing the USA cross over the border.
> You know like we did in Iraq?


How do you think we could possibly be bombed? We have a huge air force and many, many missiles.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JeffreyD said:


> How do you think we could possibly be bombed? We have a huge air force and many, many missiles.


So ?
Im pretty sure we thought the same thing on Dec 6 1941.:facepalm:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So ?
> Im pretty sure we thought the same thing on Dec 6 1941.:facepalm:


So? Really? Big difference now! We learn our lessons with time. With today's technology,an air assault isn't even a thought!


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> So? Really? Big difference now! We learn our lessons with time. With today's technology, *an air assault isn't even a thought*!


Which is why I said earlier that if you have millions of guns in the homes of the civilians and all of today's technologically advanced military weapons then what use would those civilian guns and military's weapons be to anyone if an enemy uses a biological assault against you on your home turf?

I doubt there's any enemy anywhere who doesn't know what kinds of offensive weapons America has because America has made a point of informing the world about what it's got. Now no informed enemy that has any sense would attempt to go up against that with similar offensive weapons but it wouldn't be difficult to introduce a large variety of biologicals and then just sit back and wait for all the biologicals to do the job.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> I don't think they stressed over using a civilian ship they just did it.
> I cant see Russia or China stressing over it to much either.
> *So what you are saying is because they cant land a army on Manhattan with out a shot fired it wont work?*
> In most places it would be far easier. For the USA they might be a little sneaky, say land in Mexico first. You know just to help control the border. Then after bombing the USA cross over the border.
> You know like we did in Iraq?


Are you purposely misconstruing my comments because you've taken a stand that is ludicrous and aren't man enough to back down gracefully? 

The stress was not emotional, it was meant to show how quickly the UK military bumped up against it's limited resources. And perhaps you are not aware that a UK General wrote that they nearly lost that war, with one of the world's least powerful armies. He said that 6 bombs that struck UK ships failed to detonate because of faulty fuses. Those ships would have sunk if the bombs had detonated and the UK would not have had ready replacements. Modern US missiles are far more accurate and deadly than 1970s technology that was poorly maintained and poorly fought by Argentinians.

And no, I have been very clear, I am not saying your bolded words. I've been very clear what I'm saying but you choose to create a strawman about something I'm not saying. 

As to your grand plan where Russia uses Mexican ports. OK, that's a good start. Please address these "small" issues with the plan. 
1. I've been in almost a dozen major Mexi ports. They always have USCG ships in port. How are the ruskies going to sneak in? Without word getting out?
2. How are the ruskies gong to sneak an Army that is on hundreds of ships past our Satellite recon? 
3. How are they going to sneak it past the submarines and underwater listening stations where at least as far back as the 80s, we track virtually every russian ship near the US and in several other choke points around the world? 
4. How are they going to sneak this huge force past our land, air, and sea based radars?
5. Why is the US with the world's largest navy not gong to intercept this huge invasion fleet while at sea?
6. Once this grand russian army is in Acapulco, how are they going to move the army and all it's equipment into the US? You don't drive tanks hundreds of miles without tons and tons of fuel and hours and hours of maintenance. 
7. Ft Hood is in Texas, not too far from Mexico. From wiki, "Fort Hood is one of the largest United States military installations in the world, and is the home of III Corps, 1st Cavalry Division, 13th Sustainment Command, First Army Division West, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 41st Fires Brigade and many other Forces Command and other units." Hmmm...maybe if the ruskies get as far as the tex-mex border, we'll have a welcome party waiting for them. 

I'll repeat, there is no other country in the world today that can move an Army (100,000+ men) to any point on the globe in a matter of weeks (a few months). There is no other country in the world today that can move a corps (40,000+ men) in days. We have transport capacity that other nations do not. We have ships, subs, tanks, and planes with capabilities no other country possesses. 

And once again, that does not mean that other countries can not hurt us, it simply means they can not do everything we can do. Can someone sail a couple of ships up the Hudson River and create havoc in NYC, yes, of course they can.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> So ?
> Im pretty sure we thought the same thing on Dec 6 1941.:facepalm:


Are you truly that ignorant of modern military capabilities? 

What's different today? Satellite recon did not exist in 1941? Recon planes that can fly across the Pacific today vs only a few hundred miles in '41. Radar systems that see hundreds of miles today vs a few miles then. Nuke Patrol subs that stay on station, hidden and submerged for months vs patrol subs that had to surface daily for air. 

But still, yes, a foreign country can bomb or shoot missiles at a target here and there. That does mean they can support an invasion. In msg 83 you were clear as to what you were disagreeing with, but I haven't seen you intelligently defend your position, but rather keep changing it when you're proven wrong.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Which is why I said earlier that if you have millions of guns in the homes of the civilians and all of today's technologically advanced military weapons then what use would those civilian guns and military's weapons be to anyone if an enemy uses a biological assault against you on your home turf?
> 
> I doubt there's any enemy anywhere who doesn't know what kinds of offensive weapons America has because America has made a point of informing the world about what it's got. Now no informed enemy that has any sense would attempt to go up against that with similar offensive weapons but it wouldn't be difficult to introduce a large variety of biologicals and then just sit back and wait for all the biologicals to do the job.


A country like Russia won't introduce bio weapons because we do what you say not to do. We brag about our capabilities. They know we have greater ability to hurt them in a counter attack. 

What is far more worrisome is when some group like ISIS or Hamas gets bio weapons. They are willing to die and sacrifice their own civilians for the cause.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

DEKE01 said:


> Are you truly that ignorant of modern military capabilities?
> 
> What's different today? .


LOL That's what I think each time I see your posts.
I challenged one statement.
I think I have defended the argument that there are other countries that can move significant forces within A FEW WEEKS, 

You seem to be a Ad for the armed services to the committee of the budget.

Your stand is "We have all the toys they cant hurt us"
that's a different argument and that's what we thought in 1941.
It was wrong then, I think it might be wrong now.
If Im wrong the downside is we spend a little more on defense , if you are wrong we die.

I don't think Im am going to convince you of anything so Im walking away here.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

You don't have to invade or bomb this Country to destroy it. You just have to be patient. With the leadership we have now we will rot from the inside out.

Im actually pretty good with a gun. But you can't shoot apathy. Two centuries of hard work and the end result is that we are populated by fat and lazy sluggards. What they lack in ambition the make up for with ignorance.


----------



## kycountry (Jan 26, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> You don't have to invade or bomb this Country to destroy it. You just have to be patient. With the leadership we have now we will rot from the inside out.
> 
> Im actually pretty good with a gun. But you can't shoot apathy. Two centuries of hard work and the end result is that we are populated by fat and lazy sluggards. What they lack in ambition the make up for with ignorance.


This is about the only post on this topic that is right on....

If we ever fall from world power, it will be because of the stupidity of our leaders and the laziness of the generations that follows..


----------



## Tyler520 (Aug 12, 2011)

quantity is meaningless - North Korea has a bigger standing army than Russia, but they cannot even feed themselves.

Technology and skill more than make up for numbers, and even then, a US pilot in could have swapped his FA-18 for an Iraqi's Mig-21, and still defeated him because of his superior training


----------

