To: absolootezer0
nope. if the deacon in the article is right, they wouldn't need to go to war, the keeper could just wheel it out to the front line and anyone that came up would be zotted. How would that:
a) Not still be a war
-and-
b) Remove the Ark from being a reason for the war?
40 posted on
12/29/2005 8:38:40 AM PST by
Antonello
(Oh my God, don't shoot the banana!)
To: SunkenCiv; aculeus; thefactor; blam
41 posted on
12/29/2005 8:40:21 AM PST by
Pharmboy
(The stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones.)
To: Antonello
How would that:
a) Not still be a war
-and-
b) Remove the Ark from being a reason for the war?
it would seem to me more likely to be a slaughter rather than a war. there wouldn't really be any fighting. and it sounded more like the war would be over the land the ark rests in, not over the ark itself.
altho, many countries and groups would probably happily goto war to get it for themselves. though i would bet any army except one led by israeli rabbis/ priests would meet the same fate the deacon threatens.
66 posted on
12/29/2005 10:02:29 AM PST by
absolootezer0
("My God, why have you forsaken us.. no wait, its the liberals that have forsaken you... my bad")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson