do you agree this statement.pls explain your answer.
131716
People or nations?\n\nThe advantage always is with the attacker.\nTherefore, threats must be assessed.\nSome psychology is involved, the better to understand true intentions. \nGood defenses lessen many threats.\nEquals are more likely to fight, traditionally, but this is changing at last.  \nUnequals fight when lesser is stupid or fanatic.\nU.N. working for industrialized nations, less so for ethnic groupings and internal conflicts within nations. FRANCE, AFRICA, former YUGOSLAVIA\nNo defense is an invitation to attack (without alliance).\nIntegrated economies lessen the prospect of war.\nNew:  National Suicide -- Zimbabwe, all threats internal,\nLiberia now recovering from lesser case.\nPreemptive measures should be applied only to threats of utmost gravity, especially those where intentions are clear; to wait is to invite disaster.\nCommunication lessens the prospect of war.\nCommunication and trade develop trust and understanding, thus lessening misperceptions.\nIt is always better to work in a group.  This is a check on errant morality, and is more powerful in all ways.\nWithout both internal and external threat defenses you are just meat on the table.\n\nThe foregoing come from life experience watching international happenings over last 50 years, as an ordinary citizen, and knowledge of biology, the defenses animals have against bacteria, also some ethology.\n\nI do not feel like explaining it very much as this is last Q and it is 2:00am; but I have put the absolute best up there, from my point of view.\n\nI would only add that I am more restrained than most Americans and my nation NEVER does things the way I would prefer.  I think my planning in this area is much more careful, especially in taking the counsel of relevant expertise, historical, political, ethical, legal, demographic, economic, realistic, long term, short term, fallout-wise and every other way conceivable.\n\nThey also ignore advance warnings of where policy is wrong, or what is coming down the road.
503103
I dont understand your question.
462298
This question is unclear.
328513
100% with you.\n\ntotally agree..
47632
Hi GodShew, it is a perfect answer. I agree with you
39447
the answer that you gave to your question is what i believe too
209857
In one word the answer to your question is  "YES"
582195
All right, I must admit you have made your point very clear!\nLikewise your wording is quite sound.\nPerhaps we must give it a second thought and \nElaborate the other way around as well\nReally do you want to get it right?
122399
i agree wid yr question and answer ;-)
17328
As a matter of fact, yes.  Thank you for your very inciteful question.
396530
I agree with you. You've got a very good point here.
242937
So X is dependent on TSOUT (the source of universal truth)\n\nAnd the TSOUT is dependent on X.\n\nThat, my friend, is circular logic, and as such, is a false proof.
43557
You've answered your own question. I agree
332724
I AGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR QUESTION 100%
147158
No.  The reasoning in your question is illogical.
437115
Right.  Please visit the provided source links for your answer.
303343
Clarify the question?