Back then the Witnesses castigated Pope Pius XII for his concordats with Nazi Hitler (1933) and Fascist Franco (1941), as well as for the pope’s exchange of diplomatic representatives with the aggressor nation Japan in March 1942, just a few months after the infamous Pearl Harbor attack.
It quoted a writer for the October 1995 issue of Reader’s Digest who “describes U.N. military operations as distinguished by ‘incompetent commanders, undisciplined soldiers, alliances with aggressors, failure to prevent atrocities and at times even contributing to the horror.’
“Nations,” insist the French bishops in an explanatory note, “can legitimately prepare their defenses to discourage aggressors, even by a nuclear deterrence.”
Lengi vel burðaðist ég með svo mikla kvöl og reiði að það var að eyðileggja minningu þeirrajw2019 jw2019
But even when some have united to act against an aggressor nation, the suspicion often lingers that they acted out of self-interest rather than genuine altruism.
It is envisioned that military budgets will be cut heavily in favor of using resources to address environmental threats and that, as noted in State of the World 1990, “rather than maintaining their own large defense establishments, governments may come to rely on a greatly expanded and strengthened U.N. peacekeeping force, one that would have the power and authority to defend any member country against an aggressor.”
Gwynne Dyer points out: “The idea that all the nations of the world will band together to deter or punish aggression by some maverick country is fine in principle, but who defines the aggressor, and who pays the cost in money and lives that may be needed to make him stop?”
Og þegar við gerðum þetta síðast, fyrir #, # árum, # árum, var það víst, settumst við niður og hlustuðum á bassaleikara, daginn eftir útför Cliffsopensubtitles2 opensubtitles2