Military Review

USA - Syria: the hunter will find blood!

44
The US military attack on Syria reminded me of one hunting history from my old youth. When I was still spending my summer holidays in a remote village in Vladimir, a hunting rifle with cartridges fell into my hands — which made my relationship with my beloved nature at once complicated.


When I first went with a gun to a familiar and not terrible forest before, a feeling of fear seized me. I remembered that I had met here an elk, boars - and almost in vain I saw behind each tree their eyes, which were intently focused on me. It was precisely the fact of my armament that gave such an effect: how could they know that in my cartridges there was only a four-piece, solely on partridges, and not combat jacks? Suddenly, they will be mistaken for the enemy and attack for their own self-defense first? I am a hunter - no, and remember the name!

And at first, I even walked with a gun at the ready, stumbling over the hummocks and shuddering at every bitch crunch. Then, however, I got used to it: going for mushrooms, he hung a gun on his shoulder, hoping to shoot some bird out of those that had been fired every now and then almost from under his feet. But their trace was gone - as if noisy magpies in their bird language announced beforehand the rest of the birds about my intention.

But in the end, in the grove under the village, where I finally got a brood of partridges, I ran into a boar head-on - that's when I really slammed! Partridges with the crackle of their wings broke out of the bushes - but they always flew away in such a way that between me and them turned out to be a tree, shish shot. I went both way and that, all uselessly - and suddenly I heard someone sneaking in the bushes along the way. If there is another hunter, you need to warn him not to accidentally shoot each other, and I shouted: “Who is there?” - but there was no answer. Probably does not want to scare the game, I decided - and climbed into the bushes.

And of them to meet me - shaggy boar snout with carcass commercials in centner. The eyes are small, evil - and behind are striped boars, still, apparently, have not learned to run away from the person who disturbed their peace. And, apparently, their mother looks at me so fiercely that the soul goes instantly to the heels. They say what the hell, we lived here in the first place, they did not touch you, and you pushed it with your gun until you broke it! I perceived the threat of this ingot inaccessible to my shot more than real - and, pointing the trunks at it so that, in extreme cases, at least to knock out her eye, slowly slowly backed away. Just got out of the bushes, my legs turned me to 180 degrees and carried me to the village.

I was knocked down by fear only by a local resident who told me in horror: “There is a boar with boars!” - “And why?” - “Well, so terrible ...” He so neighed back, that I was ready to die no longer from fear, but from shame for your fear of being ridiculed.

But the gun all hangs on the wall - and calls for new feats. To the forest hunt after meeting with that boar that morally beat me, I completely cooled down - but under the village there was still a wide lowland with ditches from melioration, where I hit the duck hunting. But even here I was not lucky. For a week, lasagna in those ditches I scared a couple of ducks, but, unable to beat offhand, I didn’t please any of them. Then I changed tactics: in the evening I started guarding them at the marshy lake, where they were supposed to fly for the night.

But they do not fly there and do not fly! A day does not fly, another; and I, having arranged for myself a caches on the bank, and I see it from him: with the last ray of the sun I plan to duck into the water, take it to the fly - and I’m no longer beating by!

And somehow, at dusk, someone with an obscure shadow really flies from the sky - but not on the water, but on the branch of a dry tree near. Even in the brain flashed: ducks do not sit on the trees! But I waited so much, in my hands a gun that had become sweaty from waiting, which had not yet caused any death to anyone, but put it intolerance is intolerable! .. And I, having decided that all of a sudden it was some kind of anomalous instance, I beat him, and he falls to the ground.

I run to him - alas and oh: this is not a duck at all, but an owl; and laughter and sin!

Conscience later, of course, tormented me - but not with terrible force: well, what can you do, kid, fool, was mistaken by inexperience, who does not happen! And in general, as it became clear to me a little further, the death of this innocent owl, who simply turned out to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, was not so much my fault as the gun itself that pushed me to sin. It had to, according to all the laws of the genre, to shoot one way or another - and the good thing is that everything cost one owl. Although the ducks, which seem not to be ashamed to kill, are not at all guilty of owls.

After such an unsuccessful beginning, I, having understood something for myself, nevertheless, with this hunt, did away with it forever. And our antipodes from America, on the contrary, were deeply entangled in her - that I, who had eaten this hunting bondage, is psychologically very understandable. When this gun is in your hands, everything in you is already itching to pull the trigger! Even more so if more than one day they were preparing for the shot, they were shot at the training grounds for a long time - but there is no new and no training victim! Then every owl will come for it - what Syria was for the United States, armed to the teeth and to the bone marrow. Politicians and analysts find here some economic and political reasons, but the essence is not in them.

Just like in my stupid youth, I wanted to take an owl for a duck - and took one for another, the states wanted to take their duck about the chemical attacks of Assad for a reason to unleash their trunks. And the thing is - in these trunks: if they are, itch, itch, and their powerful manufacturers only dream about firing of them, there will always be a reason for it. Moreover, the United States did understand international detente like this: freely, without the former rebuff from the USSR, discharge our barrels right and left.

To scare them once, if only morally, as I once had been protected by their boar forest rights - yes there is nobody. We, the miserable heirs of the USSR, increasingly hide only the speaker in the bushes, and then the head doesn’t hurt, and sooner or later we will become such a duck into which the sin does not burn. Or an owl into which to burn is, of course, a sin - but not all God is for only a hunter who is looking for blood.
Author:
Originator:
http://roslyakov.ru/cntnt/verhneemen/noviepubli/ssha__siri.html
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 3 September 2013 06: 45 New
    +9
    I never understood the killing of a defenseless animal at a distance for the sake of pleasure. But I perfectly imagine how much the number of hunters would have decreased if the animals had adopted similar weapons ...
    However, the second part of this judgment can be applied to foreign policy conflicts.
    1. Hort
      Hort 3 September 2013 06: 50 New
      +9
      a beast without a gun can reduce the number of hunters. Bear for example;)
      I’m telling you like a hunter. bully
      1. WASABI
        WASABI 3 September 2013 08: 25 New
        +2
        Quote: hort
        I’m telling you like a hunter.

        It’s hard for me to judge hunting - it’s mostly masculine “pleasure”, but about
        We, the miserable heirs of the USSR, are hiding more and more our only talking, and it doesn’t hurt, head - and sooner or later we ourselves will become such a duck that sin cannot be blamed.
        strongly disagree. Although Russia is not the USSR, but modern leaders do not much resemble the Stalinist “administration” at the request of making the country really great, we are not “miserable”, albeit fairly beaten by liberal reforms. We have a gigantic potential and we need only a real statesman (thinking about the greatness of the country, and not about his wallet), capable of awakening and realizing this potential.
    2. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov 3 September 2013 07: 08 New
      12
      It seems to me more and more that a piece of paper certifying that Barack Orab is a Nobel peacekeeper has this seal
    3. nemec55
      nemec55 3 September 2013 07: 13 New
      +9
      And I once didn’t understand urban people who use sausage for both cheeks saying "how do you kill animals in villages"
      1. Artyom
        Artyom 3 September 2013 10: 47 New
        +2
        Duc, in the sausage that is sold in urban stores, it just smells of meat, and it’s quite a plant product laughing
    4. APASUS
      APASUS 3 September 2013 07: 22 New
      +7
      Quote: serge-68-68
      I never understood the killing of a defenseless animal at a distance for the sake of pleasure.

      The beast and the man in the forest are on an equal footing. This “pleasure” is a whole science and the “defenseless” animal can break all bones for you armed. You are on its territory and the beast feels you, even if it doesn’t see it. Newfangled things have appeared now, and in order to track the beast, it’s necessary to ski 30-40 kilometers through the woods. If you don’t shoot it, you shoot it and take out the prey.
      This is such an epic legs hurt a week.
      1. Orel
        Orel 3 September 2013 07: 34 New
        +4
        USA - Syria: the hunter will find blood!


        I would say otherwise: "The pig will find dirt everywhere!"
      2. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 3 September 2013 07: 50 New
        +2
        Apasusu: Yeah. Conditions are unequivocally equal. To clarify this, it is enough to compare the statistics of animals killed by hunters (even the same bears) and hunters killed by animals. Is the beast somehow "strange" ineffective?
        Germans55: killing for pleasure (which I wrote about, actually) and killing for food are two big differences.
        Hortu: what can the beast do to the person I saw.
        1. APASUS
          APASUS 3 September 2013 18: 50 New
          0
          Quote: serge-68-68
          Apasusu: Yeah. Conditions are unequivocally equal. To clarify this, it is enough to compare the statistics of animals killed by hunters (even the same bears) and hunters killed by animals. Is the beast somehow "strange" ineffective?

          You draw strange enough conclusions!
          Once you need to go hunting with an experienced hunter to understand the chances of a man and a beast.
          It’s not at the feeder to sit on the room or to drive the moose away from the hang glider, but to go to the forest with your feet and see how easy it is to try to track this animal!
      3. stroporez
        stroporez 3 September 2013 10: 32 New
        +1
        Quote: APASUS
        The beast and man in the forest are on an equal footing
        so exactly. and the same hare is far from a harmless "nyasha" .........
      4. Bort radist
        Bort radist 3 September 2013 12: 22 New
        +2
        Quote: APASUS
        This "pleasure" is a whole science and a "defenseless" animal can break all bones of you armed

        A self-confident hunter, in the blink of an eye, can turn into an object of hunting. With all the ensuing consequences. Anecdote to the topic. The bear hunter went to the den. fellow He went to the outlet, crouched down and let's screw up with a pole, wake a bear. Further the first-person story: - "I feel a clawed paw on my shoulder! wassat , I turn my head, see and understand, my Polkan yes but I can't stop shitting. "
    5. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 3 September 2013 08: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: serge-68-68
      I never understood the killing of a defenseless animal at a distance for the sake of pleasure.

      Why then discuss what you do not understand? For example, I'm sorry for the intimate details, wild meat just eat.
      1. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 3 September 2013 08: 34 New
        0
        Why then minus what I did not understand?
      2. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 3 September 2013 08: 57 New
        +1
        Judging by the “intimate details” given, you probably don’t understand the difference in the terms “killing an animal for food” and “killing an animal for pleasure”. Or do you just have to be more attentive to the statements of another?
        1. Vladimirets
          Vladimirets 3 September 2013 09: 41 New
          +5
          Quote: serge-68-68
          Judging by the "intimate details" you probably don’t understand the difference in the terms “killing an animal for food” and “killing an animal for pleasure”

          I like hunting, I like meat and fur. Everything coincides, harmony can be said. This is bad? And I, as a hunter, are not at all pleased with the fact of killing, or the sight of blood, or the agony of an animal. The best quality of a hunter is to get a beast without torment and not to make wounded animals. But without the hunt itself I can’t, I don’t think you will understand me.
        2. Hort
          Hort 3 September 2013 09: 55 New
          +2
          Rather, you do not understand this very difference.
          Let me explain: killing an animal for pleasure is stupidly banging a little animal and leaving its corpse.

          And since the caught game (except for the fur-bearing animal) is eaten, this is essentially a “killing for food”.
          And, anticipating your argument about meat in the markets, I will say that meat, for example, of the same reindeer is much tastier and better than beef. The same goes for geese and ducks. Sandpipers (woodcocks) are generally a delicacy.

          And if we draw analogies with pleasure, you do not go to a restaurant / cafe for food, but to eat a dish that is not included in most of your annual diet.
          From here it’s about the same, only with “physical charge”, as APASUS already said
          1. serge-68-68
            serge-68-68 3 September 2013 10: 06 New
            -1
            I do not like the murder of an obviously weaker animal unmotivated by the need for survival. In my opinion, this is the same as killing a child or killing a wounded person under similar conditions.
            Therefore, whenever I meet and talk with hunters who "cannot be without hunting, meat and fur," and I know a lot of these, I suggest they decide (honestly) whether they will go hunting, knowing that there will be a beast waiting for them with such firearms (or any other equal) weapons. As a rule, the number of "hunters" is sharply reduced. Such is their inconstant and, mainly, unrequited love ...
            1. Hort
              Hort 3 September 2013 11: 06 New
              +3
              Aren't you vegans?

              As for equal weapons: the same bear is superior to a person in weight, speed (he’s seemingly clumsy), strength and sensory organs - in particular, his sense of smell. Therefore, he was hunted even with horn by a team of 3-5 people. He was fixed by Rogatina, and finished off from the flank.

              About your question: I’d go (honestly). It would only increase interest
        3. stroporez
          stroporez 3 September 2013 10: 34 New
          +2
          "pleasure" is not to kill Schaub ........ the buzz is to find, track, reach .......
          1. Hort
            Hort 3 September 2013 11: 10 New
            +2
            it’s useless to explain to a person who is far from hunting ...
            1. serge-68-68
              serge-68-68 3 September 2013 11: 38 New
              0
              I am from people who do not like to kill unnecessarily. Anyone whatsoever.
              Hortu: Equal weapons will increase interest, say? So what's the problem? Buy a license, take a beef and go ahead, bear! Or so - for the red words about growing interest something?
              Stroporezu: As I understand it, you, "having found, tracked down and reached" ... leave the animal life? A worthy deed, but I have doubts ...
              1. Hort
                Hort 3 September 2013 14: 36 New
                +1
                my shotgun just equalizes my chances in front of a bear. Or didn’t you read my message about the differences between a man and a bear not in favor of the first?
                By the way, I didn’t kill a single bear, and so far I’m not going to, as unnecessary.
                Without the need for hunting no one kills anyone, unless it’s certainly not drunk with a gun.
              2. matross
                matross 3 September 2013 15: 09 New
                +2
                Quote: serge-68-68
                I am from people who do not like to kill unnecessarily. Anyone whatsoever.

                It does you honor. But no more than all other people. Because those who like to kill unnecessarily are not people at all ...
                But sporting and fishing, fishing, baiting rodents, meat and fur farming, fumigation, etc., right up to antibiotic treatment is not “unnecessary.” It makes sense. And hunting, by the way, if not poaching, does not harm populations, and is often even useful. I will not smear, if you do not believe me, you can read about it. Although you, apparently, can not be persuaded ...
                Respectfully your opinion hi
              3. APASUS
                APASUS 3 September 2013 21: 47 New
                +1
                Quote: serge-68-68
                I am from people who do not like to kill unnecessarily. Anyone whatsoever.

                You are a naive person.
                I put a liter of Hennessy that you can’t follow the boar ............. I don’t say at all that if you miss, your chance will be 100 to 1 in favor of the BOAR!
  2. andrei332809
    andrei332809 3 September 2013 06: 46 New
    +2
    somewhere I already heard it, the right of the strong. do not be weak, you will not be to blame. like Kaiser or fascist ideology.
    1. Refund_SSSR
      Refund_SSSR 3 September 2013 06: 48 New
      +6
      From the history of ancient Rome

      According to the ancient Greek historian Plutarch (c. 45 - c. 127), once the Gauls (the tribes that lived in antiquity on the territory of modern France) crossed the Alps and invaded Italy. Residents of the besieged city of Klusium called for help from the Romans. The Roman ambassadors asked the Gallic leader Brenn (XNUMXth century BC) to make peace with the inhabitants of this city, since they were long-standing allies of the Romans.
      Brenn agreed, but demanded compensation from the city of Klusium - part of its fertile land with vineyards. The Romans were indignant: “But by what right do you take the land from their rightful owners?” To which Brenn replied with words that became a famous historical phrase: We bear our right at the end of our sword. Strong belongs to the whole world!
      The next day, a battle began between the Gauls and the Kluzium-mi. The Roman ambassadors, breaking the customs of war, also joined the ranks of their allies. Noticing this, Brenn immediately stopped the battle and turned to the Roman Senate with a demand to give him ambassadors who violated the laws of war. The Senate replied mockingly. Then Brennus moved his troops against the Romans and, completely defeating them in the first battle, took possession of their capital - Rome. (There Brenn uttered his other historical phrase. See Woe to the vanquished!).
      On the basis of Brenn’s phrase, the expression “the right of the strong” has developed - to do something by the right of the strong, etc.
      1. andrei332809
        andrei332809 3 September 2013 06: 56 New
        +1
        Thanks, enlightened. I speak without irony hi
  3. Refund_SSSR
    Refund_SSSR 3 September 2013 06: 47 New
    +6
    The article is verbiage.

    We, the miserable heirs of the USSR, increasingly hide in our bushes our only talking, and it doesn’t hurt, head

    "Glad" for you ... but who will you forgive?
  4. My address
    My address 3 September 2013 06: 47 New
    +4
    At the summit of the twenty Babam to prod the bundle with the inscription "Nobel laureate of the world". And in convolution a colt with one cartridge.
    1. stroporez
      stroporez 3 September 2013 10: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: My address
      And in the convolution colt with one cartridge.
      is still earn nada ....... a nigger is not a warrior .... my opinion ------- Vokzal'na belyashi let them poison, and dies on the pot .........
      1. My address
        My address 3 September 2013 11: 23 New
        0
        Thank you, Oleg, amused.
  5. erased
    erased 3 September 2013 06: 49 New
    +1
    The essence of the article is that it is time to stop hiding your head? So this should be addressed to the Kremlin. Let a wild boar be found there among thieves and thieves. And we’ll talk on the site, discuss, express, put the pluses or minuses, posuboskalim and do something else there. And we will wait. Partridge. Or a boar. Or a hunter with a gun. In the meantime, you can still poison the bikes. For pi ... whistle - do not toss the bags.
  6. smel
    smel 3 September 2013 06: 50 New
    +1
    I know that sometimes even a lot of hunters get from the beast. The beast is especially dangerous when it is wounded or driven out. I think that the Americans will become aware of this, although the forces are clearly unequal. God help the Syrians teach the world hamlo
  7. Hort
    Hort 3 September 2013 06: 54 New
    +1
    the author pulled "muda to the beard," as his grandfather used to say in his time.
    attempts to hunt, USA, wild boars ... what did you want to say?
  8. vasiliysxx
    vasiliysxx 3 September 2013 06: 55 New
    +5
    we won’t become a duck, rather a connecting rod bear, and it’s better not to meet us in the forest smile
  9. evgenii67
    evgenii67 3 September 2013 06: 57 New
    +2
    Hello everyone! Stories from the hunter! Detente in the morning, smiled! As for the Syria-owl, the USA-hunter, it is unlikely that all the same there is more economics and politics (geopolitics) than "I have a gun to fire it."
  10. Kiliny
    Kiliny 3 September 2013 06: 58 New
    0
    The USA seems to have no one to stop
    1. Valery Neonov
      Valery Neonov 3 September 2013 07: 29 New
      +2
      Yes, my friend you are in pessimism, full of you, amers politically in any case:
    2. Strezhevchanin
      Strezhevchanin 3 September 2013 08: 43 New
      +3
      Quote: KilinY
      The USA seems to have no one to stop
  11. shpuntik
    shpuntik 3 September 2013 07: 02 New
    +6
    After such an unsuccessful beginning, I nevertheless understood something for myself and ended this hunt forever.

    This article is explanatory for the military registration and enlistment office, during mobilization, most of it. Do not take into the army. laughing
    For sincerity +.
    Although the comparison is tight, but in principle it is true. Not everyone can be a hunter, there are few natural ones. Somewhere there was an article about a sniper from Mansi, yes. 600 m without optics what This is genetics.
  12. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 3 September 2013 07: 11 New
    +1
    Something did not understand the last paragraph - who it is:"We, the miserable heirs of the USSR, are hiding more and more our talking head in the bushes, and it doesn’t hurt, our head ..". HURTLY SHOULDER YOU SHOULDER! Do not expose your opinion about RUSSIA as if from everyone. IT WILL BE A SHAME! fool
  13. Cormorants
    Cormorants 3 September 2013 07: 35 New
    +1
    I understand the hunt that they live on, food, etc. But for the sake of pleasure, killing is already a bad sign.
    As for the United States, it seems to me there are more economic and political reasons for the outbreak of the conflict, and not because they have long had a gun hanging and their hands itch.
    They need the Middle East, they need to control the production and refining of oil, and ultimately control the whole country. This is the construction of a new single order with one pole.
    America is on the verge of an economic crisis, a very big debt. It is supported by the dollar, as soon as it collapses the whole end of the United States, the dollar needs warriors, they hold back its collapse.
    1. Hort
      Hort 3 September 2013 09: 44 New
      0
      "hunting for pleasure is a bad sign." Are you in a restaurant, say, out of need, or for pleasure?
      It’s about the same here, you’re just walking around the forest. Yes and not always with the result
  14. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 3 September 2013 07: 42 New
    0
    Alexander Romanov (1) RU
    It seems to me more and more that a piece of paper certifying that Barack Orab is a Nobel peacekeeper has this seal ...

    ... Well, what are you !? He is the “DOVE OF THE WORLD" ...
  15. The comment was deleted.
  16. Ivan79
    Ivan79 3 September 2013 08: 18 New
    0
    It seems to me that if we "hid our heads in the bushes", then NATO would have trodden the boot ...
    But in the situation with Libya, we did just that with our own head ...
  17. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN 3 September 2013 09: 02 New
    0
    I liked the article, there is something to ponder.!

    And the thing is all in these trunks: since they are there, itchy, they overthrow, and their mighty producers only dream of a shot from them, there will always be a reason for it.
    Weapons are produced a lot and sooner or later it will shoot explode .. And you can always find a reason (before the USSR held back, now Russia is trying) God forbid war ...
  18. d_trader
    d_trader 3 September 2013 13: 25 New
    0
    RIA News. The Russian missile attack warning system (SPRN) on Tuesday morning at 10.16 Moscow time recorded the start of two ballistic targets in the Mediterranean Sea, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.
    So here .....
  19. avg
    avg 3 September 2013 14: 00 New
    0
    Dear A. Roslyakov. Do you offer what? Fuck on am "vigorous bomb" or limited to the "angry" statements of Mr. Lavrov. Or, "sit on the priest straight" and write about hunting, nature, etc. - however, perhaps the time is right. So the discussion turned out mainly about wild boars and bears.
  20. Marconi41
    Marconi41 3 September 2013 14: 09 New
    0
    Somewhat disagree with the author. Compared to hunting, the United States is a fairly experienced hunter. Of those who know what you need to take ammunition with you and what decoy. And when hunting, a good hunter will always be above the beast. Another thing is whether such a hunter can kill with impunity, or he has yet to meet with an experienced forester guarding the game.
  21. Zhylaw
    Zhylaw 3 September 2013 14: 13 New
    0
    They say that if the United States launched a new war in the Middle East, oil prices will increase, and then the revenue side of Russia's budget will increase significantly. I guess so.
    If this happens, I have an idea how to spend the surplus for the benefit of all mankind:

    Creation and financing of the Texas Liberation Army.

    If American leaders itch your finger on the trigger, you will find their simple and quick way to ease their suffering. In addition, it is very close to the Potomac River. Thus, the Pentagon can save a significant portion of the truncated budget.

    One shot of two birds with one stone, as they say. The world will get rid of democracy and democratizers. The Yankees will have something to play in the backyard.
  22. Letnab
    Letnab 3 September 2013 16: 20 New
    0
    serge-68-68
    when you eat in the same tavern, you don’t ask how the same chop was mined ... but the slaughterhouse is really a murder, and the animal feels it! Do not compare it with hunting, everything is different there, you probably won’t understand ..
  23. reddisko
    reddisko 3 September 2013 17: 03 New
    0
    The whole parable. Interesting
  24. AleksUkr
    AleksUkr 3 September 2013 17: 52 New
    0
    Whatever anyone says or thinks, the Americans are overgrown. There are no cynical people in the world. They say one thing and do another. They support themselves in this, considering all suckers. They owe it to the whole world, but this does not bother them. BUT WE KNOW - Arrogance is certainly happiness, but not for long. People’s tears will pour out to them.