First I'm going to give you what you came for, and then feel free
to read on if you would like to see how the 15 strongest was
determined.

To go into some detail on how I decided what countries to place in the Top 15,
and why they are placed in this particular order.
                 
I first had to decide what makes a military so great. In the general
sense of things, there are hundreds if not thousands, of small factors that must
be powering the machine at any given time. Taking this into consideration, I have
made a valid attempt to group these factors into major categories.
For instance, the amount of healthy young men, birthrates, amount of people in the working class,
amount of people suited for military but not in military, so on and so forth;
all have to do with a country's military capabilities, but instead of spending
forever trying to determine what those numbers are for each country on the
planet, i just used one major category called "Country's Total Population".
Given the total population of a country you can determine that those with a much
  higher amount of citizens will generally have more in those smaller
  categories. 
                 
Now that you understand why i chose these certain categories, i'll tell
you those categories and why they are a very good indicator of a countries
military strength.

 - Total Population        
The resource of humans is unmatched in a military, because without them
you have none.


- Total Population in Active Military              
Clear indicator of how sturdy a country's immediate offensive and
defensive military capability adds up.


- Amount of Operational Tanks
 Since WWI tanks have been major deciders on every battle
front.


- Amount of Armored Personnel Carriers (APC) and
    Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV)
 The purpose of these are not direct battles, but for enforcing the army as
whole. These vehicles are perfect for what they do: Safely move the troops. The more
of these you have, the better guarantee you have getting your troops to and from
the battle.


- Amount of Operational Logistical Vehicles
 The major support system to any military are the "miscellaneous" vehicles
  that carry all the supplies. No fuel tankers, and your tanks loose incredible
  capabilities; no food or water, and you lose your men... lose your men and lose
  the war.


- Amount Total of Military Grade Air Craft 
While the Air Force doesn't win wars all on its own... Take away those
fighter jets, bombers, and helicopters then you'll see just how vulnerable those
countries become.


- Amount Total of Military Grade Navy Ships
 History has shown us that a country's coastal boarder is a very good
indicator of military strength, because it provides an easier defense against
invading enemies, and allows for the development of a Navy. With that in mind,
having a Navy alone gives a country a higher rating, but we must also look at
the actual numbers of the many different types of ships that make it both tactical
and over all powerful. For instance, submarines and carriers are so tactful
 that they can can make or break a Navy in a very short period of time.


- Countries Total Land Mass
 The sheer size of a country and the layout can mean the difference between
fighting off an invasion and falling to the enemy. Ask any American
Soldier that has fought in the Middle East; ask Russia about WWII,
Napoleon about Egypt, or the British about the Revolutionary War in America. The
pros far outweigh the cons in a country's total size; both due to the available
resources, and the tactics involved with so much geography.


- Oil Production (barrels per day)
 The Amount of Oil a country can produce on its own could mean everything to
military abilities. This is taken on the basis that if a country was all on its
own, and by being on its own would it be able to fuel all those tanks, ships,
and planes without the oil from other countries? Most countries are an easy No.
So the more oil a country can produce in a day, the higher its military strength becomes. 
                  
To put into perspective, Kuwait is clearly weaker than Greece when looking at man power
the amount of people, air craft, navy units, and sheer size of the countries, but if the
countries had all outside help and resources cut off, we would see them become
far more equal. Kuwait could easily be self sufficient in fueling its number of vehicles
while Greece would come to a halt.


- Total Spending on Defense Budget
 It's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it. That's true, but if
you are spending billions of dollars more than the competitor, it's very
likely that you have certain capabilities he doesn't. Tanks don't run for free, and
special forces don't do so well with $10 gadgets.


- Weapons of Mass Destruction Capabilities
 It is exactly as it reads. A countries ability to apply massive damage
with few bombs. This includes not just "does a country have nuclear weapons" and
"if so how many" but also major ballistics that do a certain amount of damage.
Then if they have them, how big of a reach does this country have with
those weapons, because if you have 10,000 short range ballistic missiles, you're
not much of a threat to anyone 2 or 3 countries over. 
500 mile missiles are frightening when you're 499 miles away.... not so
much at 5,000 miles away.
                 
That being said, only 9 countries have a confirmed nuclear arsenal of
some size, 1 has capabilities, and after that only 5 other countries have short
to long range Ballistics. Which means only 15 countries can fight a battle more
than 100 miles away, without having to move.
  


                 
     Now that you have all this information; there are a few countries i feel
deserve an honorable mention. This is because these countries don't really excel
to the very top in any of these areas, but overall they have a very well rounded
and established military, and do frequent the top of the charts. For example
Italy doesn't have weapons of mass destruction, or large land mass; but they do however
have a major influence in population size, and military expenditures.


My 5 Honorable mentions: 
- Israel , South Korea,  Italy, Syria, and Japan

    When I say Pro Wrestling Star i don't mean gold medalists and Sumo guys. I'm talking about the "Superstars" of WWE, WCW, TNA, etc. Now that we have that clear, lets move on to the point of this blog.
    Recently you may have heard of Randy Savage, aka Macho Man, who died at age 58 standing 6'2" weighing 240 pounds. When you look at old wrestling clips of when he first started out it's not hard to see that he gained a lot of muscle. His natural build was lean and lanky, which was perfect for baseball where he started out. Now over twenty years later at age 58 he was massive. It was no surprise to me that they found his heart to be enlarged and in bad shape. Minor cuts and bruises don't kill people, bad hearts do.
    Starting from 1917, we will go through the causes of death of Pro Wrestling Stars. I'll go in order from least common to most common causes. To save time i wont give names and detailed accounts of how they died, but i'll place several sites at the end of this blog in case you get curious.
            In all there have been 95 deaths starting from the first in 1917 (Frank Gotch) and last being Randy Savage, as previously mentioned, this year.
    #12.) Ruptured Blood Vessel: 1 (happened while weight lifting)
    #11-9.) 3 way tie: Unknown causes, Murder, and Stroke = 3 (each)
            --Yes, i find it interesting that there are just as many murders as strokes. Especially strokes being the #3
    cause of death in the United States and murder being #15. So, if you use the US statistics vs Pro Wrestling             Statistics you find that as a pro wrestler you have over 3 times the normal chance for being murdered.
    #8-7.) Tie: Complications with surgery, and kidney problems = 4 (each)
            -- Kidney disease is the #9 leading cause of death in the US, so in my opinion there is no real reason to draw
    attention to this number.
    #6-5.) Tie: Vehicular Accidents, and Suicide = 6 (each)
            -- one was a plane crash, and he was the pilot. That's also a disturbing number of suicides considering in the     US it's not even a top 10 cause of death, and here it's tied for #6 with accidents, which is #5 in the US. As a Pro
    Wrestler you are 6 1/2 times more likely to commit suicide than the average American.
    #4.) Drug Overdose: 9
            -- This again is a very disturbing number, and also helps to prove my point for putting this blog up. The drugs     range from pain killers to cocaine. Showing that they seem to have a strong bond with Professional Wrestling. The     last one to OD was Andrew Martin, aka TEST, and was just 33 years old, in March of 2009. Drug use is in the
    "other" category which is a clump of things that cause less than 1% of deaths in the US put together, which             means Pro Wrestlers have a serious drug problem no matter how you slice it.
    #3.) Cancer: 10
        -- In the US cancer is the #2 leading cause of death. Although scary, this number is one of the few that is not         totally out of whack.
    #2.) Natural Causes: Those that have died of a heart attack at age 65+ (beings the average American Males first         heart attack is at age 66), and other causes such as sickle cell (1 guy), and diabetes (1 guy). = 16
        -- so whether they died do to an enlarged heart from years of drug use or not, once they hit 65 it's really hard to
    make a big conspiracy out of, so for this blog we'll call them all legit deaths.
    #1.) Heart Attack Before age 65: 30
        -- This is perhaps the the most disturbing number. Pro Wrestlers are the most likely to die of heart problems         before the average of any other occupation. Most of the 30 where not even 60! Nearly a dozen where under 40, and
    the youngest was Russ Haas at age 27.

        The lesson to take from this is that our Superstars are obviously out of control, and although awesome spectacles to look at, and awe inspiring to children and wrestling fans, they are in need of much help. Someone isn't doing their job if people are dying so obviously young from things that shouldn't even be a concern. I myself am a wrestling fan, and although i'm not a big fan, i still enjoy watching it at times, and i too find my self wishing i could look like them, but i know what they put themselves through and sometimes i feel a big guilty for supporting it, but then again when it comes down to it, they are making the choice... so how do you begin the argument with someone that is totally ok with what they are doing, knowing the risks they are taking? I suppose you start by making others aware.

some sites for more information:

WRESTLERS
http://ricknovaksr.tripod.com/wrestlinglife/id20.html
http://www.pwwew.net/people/dead.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-03-12-pro-wrestling_x.htm

DEATH STATS
http://www.howtolivealongerlife.com/2009/07/leading-causes-of-death-in-us.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0779147.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

   Many of us have grown up with pets. Most of us had a dog or cat, and those of us with dogs probably heard somewhere down the road that one of the deadliest things to give a dog is chocolate. Is this really true? To answer the question in full, and help you understand better what is actually going on, we must first address what chocolate is and how our systems react to it.
   Chocolate is processed from seeds of the cacao trees. These seeds contain compounds called methylxandthine. It includes many substances, but the 2 we will be focusing on are caffeine and theobromine. Both of these substances are found in chocolate, and react badly upon the systems of animals in the Canidae family. So, to save you the headache of going into taxonomy and what the key characteristics are for filing an animal in the Canidae family, i'll simply list a few examples: foxes, dingos, wolves, and domestic dogs.
   The animals in this family produce natural compounds that are blocked out by theobromine and caffeine. Even though in humans it induces a type of euphora, it can cause a dog to vomit and have diarrhea in small doses, and in moderate to large amounts will cause their heart to race, their muscles to tremor, and in some cases seizure and die.
   Now before you throw out all your chocolate or beat your children for leaving it in the dogs path know that on the top 4 candy holidays (valentines day, Easter, Halloween, and Christmas) between 150 and 200 dogs are hospitalized due to chocolate consumption, and only 1 will die. In most cases the dogs that do lose their lives are either older with a weakened heart to begin with, or small like chahuahuas and beagles.
   The danger level for chocolate can be usually determined by 3 key factors. #1. the size of the dog vs, the amount of chocolate eaten. less than four ounces has been known to take the life of dogs under 10 pounds. #2. the age of the dog. Older dogs will have weaker systems, the reaction is comparable to an elderly person using cocaine. Although the thought is funny, in reality someone over 70 is going to have a much more dangerous reaction to cocaine than a 25 year old. #3. the most important factor happens to be the amount of natural cacao in the chocolate. Unsweetened baking chocolate contains over 6 times the amount of theobromine than milk chocolates.
   Though the fear of losing a dog to chocolate can sometimes be exaggerated we still need to be very careful. A handful of M&M's will most likely only cause the dog a little discomfort for awhile, or even cause them to be a bit energetic due to the heart rates, and of course poop more than we'd like them to. But we must remember that it is toxic to them no matter how you slice it. When in doubt, go to the vet. If anything they'll give the dog some charcoal to help absorb some of the toxin and send you and puppy on your way.