The War is back on

[Gato_Solo]

48% NUCLEAR
50% BIOLOGICAL
36% CONVENTIONAL


It never asks about the M-13 mask I have in my apartment. That pretty much eliminates the biological hazard...

 

[spike]

You got my back? Thanks, bro. I figured the alqueda quote was common knowledge:

http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0911/jpn0911c.htm

I was just too focused on the "without cause" part--that's what I get for not paying attention---but I will point out after your post at #9 this thread went "a little off topic."

Off topic is cool. It was that you were replying directly to something about Soviets giving Iran defensive weapons with something about Al Queada. Just hard to tell if you had a point about the Iran-Russia thing.

Would this be related to the original topic?

Russia is getting religious? Good for them.

 

[BB]

48% NUCLEAR
50% BIOLOGICAL
36% CONVENTIONAL


It never asks about the M-13 mask I have in my apartment. That pretty much eliminates the biological hazard...

so ..by the BB scale ... a 50/50 contamination risk factor from the mistress / girlfriend ... only a third risk of everyday conventional war from the wife .... excepting of course if the 50/50 mistress scenario actualy does entail -

- wherein it's 48% "the war is back on" factor - and it's gonna be a nuclear conforntation?


heh- j/k

Wotcha Gato - how's things?

best BB

 

[Gato_Solo]

Oh yeah, threats from WMDs sound familiar? That was the job. How's that going?

Don't talk to me about looking like a fool while you always sit around doubting evidence while providing none of your own.

Let's see...why don't we start with WWI, then we can move on to WWII, then Korea, and then to Vietnam. Once you're done with those, then you can start on Greneda. Have a nice time, and be sure to show why we attacked, and how that was defending our country.

If he comes up with anything somebody please let me know...

 

[Gato_Solo]

Because they were driving a theoretical tank... and blowing up a house is much more fun than shooting the theoretical terrorists with their theoretical M16s.

If the theoretical terrorists shoot at a theoretical tank, why should the theoretical tank crew get out into the open and expose themselves to deadly fire? Traverse the turret, fire, and the problem is solved. Thats what war is about. Not that "suppose there are innocents in there" mentality that post reeks of. Hate to burst your bubble, but the theoretical tank crew got it right. Sorry the kids got killed, but them's the breaks.

 

[freako104]

If the theoretical terrorists shoot at a theoretical tank, why should the theoretical tank crew get out into the open and expose themselves to deadly fire? Traverse the turret, fire, and the problem is solved. Thats what war is about. Not that "suppose there are innocents in there" mentality that post reeks of. Hate to burst your bubble, but the theoretical tank crew got it right. Sorry the kids got killed, but them's the breaks.

While I generally disagree with war, in this theorrtical situation, the soldiers in the tank have a right to defend themselves. I would rather they were only getting the enemy combatants or terrorists without killing innocents, but their lives are in danger they are allowed to defend themselves