2007-11-05 06:48:00 · 19 answers · asked by G's Random Thoughts 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Absolutely, going off on a tangent won't take away from the prime base. War increases exponentially, yet irrationally. Reciprocal action results in a logarithmic growth in complexity. One day everything will be reduced to the lowest common denominator and we will be able to prove with infinite assurance that there is little probability of any other QED.
Agreed?
2007-11-05 09:41:15 · answer #1 · answered by awayforabit 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I was never very good in math. Perhaps that is how someone could get me down is a weapon of math destruction.
2007-11-05 07:09:53 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
On what context?
Several countries have weapons of mass destruction.
Do we only attack the nations where dark skinned people have the weapons of mass destruction? And if so, why?
2007-11-05 06:51:32 · answer #3 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends on who has possession. If the people that have them are threatening to use them against others, than yes, war is justifiable. If they are having them and not threatening them, then no, it is not.
2007-11-05 06:51:28 · answer #4 · answered by Lisa M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Like Staples and Office Depot?
2007-11-05 06:53:48 · answer #5 · answered by Veronica S 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Like No Child Left Behind? Ruh-roh...
2007-11-05 07:01:29 · answer #6 · answered by contrarycrow 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
YA! I vote for math destruction!
2007-11-05 06:51:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Just try Bush 101 and recognize expectable trouble.
2007-11-05 06:54:07 · answer #8 · answered by Adam 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's as easy a 1 + 1.
Three, right?
2007-11-05 07:09:46 · answer #9 · answered by John K 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely justifiable and in that case Congress would have approved it.
2007-11-05 06:52:16 · answer #10 · answered by subprimelendor 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋