It is a map that shows worlds largest armies
(Their army personal numbers.)

Armies.jpg

If it was given please warn me.

I don't think it is true.

So why? Because Iraq is in the list?

Here's a reason I agree with Fox.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

Here's a reason I agree with Fox.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militar..._United_States

I think if you look at that link closer you will see that the original post is pretty close to correct the US "Army" is listed as roughly 500000 Active duty personnel, what it doesn't take into account is the Navy, Air force, Marines etc. basically the original information is seemingly only looking at the "Army" branch of the military.

Originally Posted by oRTouCH

So why? Because Iraq is in the list?

No....that's not it.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think if you look at that link closer you will see that the original post is pretty close to correct the US "Army" is listed as roughly 500000 Active duty personnel, what it doesn't take into account is the Navy, Air force, Marines etc. basically the original information is seemingly only looking at the "Army" branch of the military.

Then why even bother making this thread? US doctorine doesn't have the Army fighting alone, the US has Joint-Operations. What is the point of pointing out the Army? Besides, why only count active duty?? Why not reserves?

I mean the US Navy alone is no questions asked top. With England following in second. 12 aircraft carriers does kinda push it up there.

This is nothing more than pet your countries military ego thread.

Originally Posted by Cadet Seaman

Then why even bother making this thread? US doctorine doesn't have the Army fighting alone, the US has Joint-Operations. What is the point of pointing out the Army? Besides, why only count active duty?? Why not reserves?

I mean the US Navy alone is no questions asked top. With England following in second. 12 aircraft carriers does kinda push it up there.

This is nothing more than pet your countries military ego thread.

Dont look at me I never created the thread I just pointed out that the information was correct based on both of your sources, personally I would be happy that he didn't include reserves or the resulting numbers would have been even less flattering.

As far as pet your country countries military ego threads go I can't see a problem there either as 90% of the threads on this board do exactly that.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Dont look at me I never created the thread I just pointed out that the information was correct based on both of your sources, personally I would be happy that he didn't include reserves or the resulting numbers would have been even less flattering.

As far as pet your country countries military ego threads go I can't see a problem there either as 90% of the threads on this board do exactly that.

I'm going to defuse this right now................it really doesn't matter.

I put it as my scrensaver thanks for helping me think about what i did, and took it of.