Is an aggressive response to a passive situation acceptable if it prohibits further aggression in the case of nation states and war? If one nation is about to destroy thousands of lives, would the collateral damage of a hostile strike on the former nation be appropriate if in the balance of lives lost and lives saved the lives saved comes up in the positive?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your Text
Labels
- bailout (1)
- blogging. (2)
- brian head welch (1)
- calling (1)
- causes (1)
- devo (1)
- housing (1)
- invisible children (1)
- life (1)
- media (1)
- movies (1)
- music (1)
- obama (2)
- politics (3)
- politics. (1)
- Relationships (1)
- Religion (2)
- rhetoric (1)
- save me from myself (1)
- the rescue (1)
0 people said::
Post a Comment