writing papers sucks

PixiDustr

PixiDustr

Active Member
to attack when they attack and not attack when they don't attack...you don't have to build a war arsenal on the thought that they might attack...wastes resources...the dilemna is that if they attack you will have to build up the arsenal...
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
PixiDustr said:
to attack when they attack and not attack when they don't attack...you don't have to build a war arsenal on the thought that they might attack...wastes resources...the dilemna is that if they attack you will have to build up the arsenal...
Click to expand...
Arsenals take time to build up ... longer than it takes for an invader to git'r done ... unless, of course, your home nation is Russia. cn
 
CinnamonGirl

CinnamonGirl

Active Member
ganjames said:
i actually assumed you did know her, like she got her boyfriend to join the site or some shit.

which was the reason for the blowjob joke.
Click to expand...
awww, I thought you were my boyfriend . . .;)

(I'm a cougar james. . .grrrrrrr)

(how's that for a creeper? lolol)
 
ganjames

ganjames

Well-Known Member
the question shouldn't even be presented anyway.

i would have made strong allies with my surrounding states in the beginning.
and if that one state still wants to attack, let em.. they're gonna need all the luck they can get.
 
James87

James87

Active Member
If both nations are equal, "whoever has more guns" is not a legitimate answer. The reason I said attack, was that the longer both sides build-up, the more collateral damage will result. If they just keep attacking until stalemate, building up arms will have no merit and another solution will present itself, either politically or economically. If both sides keep building up, then you have a cold war.... And then an attack for either, at such a late stage, can only result in complete obliteration for both.
 
CinnamonGirl

CinnamonGirl

Active Member
James87 said:
If both nations are equal, "whoever has more guns" is not a legitimate answer. The reason I said attack, was that the longer both sides build-up, the more collateral damage will result. If they just keep attacking until stalemate, building up arms will have no merit and another solution will present itself, either politically or economically. If both sides keep building up, then you have a cold war.... And then an attack for either, at such a late stage, can only result in complete obliteration for both.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is a "right" answer-- the question only provided two choices-- attack or don't attack-- either is a viable option and depends on the political philosophy of the respondent. Personally, I would choose attack and conquer as well. Install your own government with your own people and get rid of those that don't assimilate is in my mind the logical cost effective path to actual peace--albeit not a very compassionate position--But, I have always admired the warrior kings throughout history. Amassing weapons in the name of peace is a waste of time and money.
 
M

meechz 024

Active Member
Down with curriculum. I'm with the teachers who encourage their students to write about shit they actually give a fuck about. Fuck a hierarchy. we need democratic and equal school environment where the teachers can tell you to fuck yourself and you can tell them to fuck themselves also, and then you can go outside to smoke a cigarette and laugh about it.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Got yer Monte Carlo iteration right here, c2g. cn
(More of a pregression, really.)
(But this guy always went down smooth.)




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top