New Weapon - GAY GAS????

Richard Lionheart was as queer as the proverbial three dollar bill . . . his Mom, Eleanor of Acquitaine, once insulted him in front of his army because he had no wife, no heir and liked to bugger little boys--Richard ignored her . . . his two favorite passtimes were buggering adolescent boys and hacking people into little, tiny pieces with a two-handed broadsword . . .

Iulius Caesar was notoriously bisexual--his legionaries used to sing that he was: Every woman's man, and every man's woman . . .

Alexander III of Macedon, misnamed "the Great," was also a gay boy . . .

Yup, there is absolutely no reason to assume that homosexuals won't or can't fight . . .

As I attempted to note, Setanta. I don't believe that to be the case.

However, a weapon that causes the enemy to have perpetual "hard-ons" would seem to divert their attention, and would appear to be a decent weapon if there is such a thing.

Would it be against Geneva or any other rules of war to use such a chemical?

I'm guessing there's a number of soldiers who already have hard-ons when shooting their guns....

Those Air Force generals just want something to put in their stewards' coffee.

My ancient ancestors went into battle nekkid . . . havin' a big hard-on was considered a sign of martial prowess . . .

This has to be a joke right ?

Yes, but we no longer fight nekkid as far as I know, and I would think it much less comfortable.

Do we include salt peter in MRE's for our own soldiers? Anything wrong with that?

If not, would it be okay to develop an aphrodisiac for the enemy?

Er... no. Our military really is that stupid.

No, not a joke. The idea was apparently "thrown out" during a brain storming session among military heads. (giggle..... sorry.)

While the reasoning behind it seems skewed, to say the least, by the people putting it forth, I'm thinking there may actually be a good use for a general mega aphrodisiac weapon.

I don't understand why fighting nekkid would be uncomfortable . . . having bullets enter your body would be uncomfortable, but having a nice frock on at the time wouldn't change that . . .

I had a somewhat related experience. I was at Marshall Fields at Christmas time and a man with a cologne spritzer came up to me and said: "Obsession for men?" I politely informed him that I had my own problems to deal with and that I really couldn't help him with his.

As any former solidier can tell you, erections are common in battle. The Greeks encouraged all their troops to form sexual bonds, they thought they would fight for better if defending their lovers. Of course, I don't think anyone in the Bush administration ever got more than a C- in history, so this is all new territory to them.

So even war is essentially about getting laid?

I wonder what chemical the military thought might turn men into hoplessly lustful gay sex machines? Better not let let Karl Lagerfeld or Elton John get their hands on it.

Apparently gas is a weapon the military just doesn't want to give up on.

Not a bad idea to come up with one that disables the enemy through behavioral changes rather than physical harm, but as others have pointed out, stimulating arousal in a soldier will not necessarily reduce his desire to kill.

Better to look for one that induces fear.

You mean other things are about getting laid?

They oughtta try upping the supply of beans to the enemy camp. Let 'em gas themselves.

I much prefer the idea of the "banana peel bomb" that makes everything slippery.

Uh, would that be shortened in name and become the "K-Y Bomb," Boomer?

Someone must've seen that Get Smart movie just before the brainstorming session.

Banana peel bomb/KY bomb: same difference.