A month ago, the journalist Alejandro Guillermo, asked us all to "serving the military-Chilean -?.
His question was very specific, but I think from the fuss caused and the foundation which must submit its approach to defend him, stand back and take preferred finally say that your question was part of a situation and context much more limited. Self-censorship.
But, the scope of your question expressly states a world much deeper than I fail to emerge, and the risk of not wanting to be challenged without permission, my dear Alexander, if you want to perform freely , like any reader to the literature. Come To the point.
Theory; If we go to court to resolve the scope of our sovereignty, the latter never depend victory or defeat of our army (guarantor of that quality of our territory), which is why the strength, training, weapons and / or technology that our soldiers have is not revealing to the final outcome of our conflict.
If every dispute of any nature will end in court, we should invest a% too high of a legal teams (National and International) journalism and public relations, "Lobito", essayists, historians and anything that involves being aware of future conflicts can be resolved in courts as
1 .- Many said that having a strong army and prepared is the best defense to avoid conflict with other countries (the old excuse put forward).
CONCLUSION
Without any encouragement warmonger (Peruvians might wonder the same thing), I think there is this debate in the media with subject matter experts, we would clarify some points that maybe do not know, but clearly does not fit.
FRASESISAÑA
.- For now, our sovereignty is exposed and subjected "to the will of a trial and not by force of men" and we all know that the will is much more superficial than strength.
.- Nobody but a fool would seek a war. But innocence is sometimes like being a perfect idiot-
0 comments:
Post a Comment