Word: aggressors
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1950-1959
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Korea, has limited the conflict to Korea itself. There have been many difficulties and vast provocations, but ... it is the intention of the U.N. command to continue that limitation" and "achieve an honest armistice." But, he warned, "the Assembly must come to some conclusion as to whether the aggressor really wants an armistice . . . We all share a deep yearning for ... peace. But we must not and we cannot buy peace at the price of honor. If the resistance must go on, then we shall have to examine our positions...
...those who made us suffer so much, and we desire to forget their cruelties if they agree not to forget them, certain apologies for their discipline and their will to power, in comparison with an alleged carelessness on the French side, hurt us profoundly. It is as if the aggressor merited more encouragement than the victim...
...Acheson talked, Russia's Andrei Vishinsky followed the English text closely and three times underscored Acheson's remarks. The underscorings: "The aggressor [in Korea] now counts for victory upon those of faint heart who would grow weary of the struggle . . . We shall fight on as long as is necessary to stop the aggression. We shall stop fighting when an armistice on just terms has been achieved . . . The Communists have so far rejected reasonable terms for an armistice...
...Salas last May; in Chicago. Salas, planning to keep his crown the same way he won it-by covering up in the early rounds and letting Carter tire-never got a chance to try such tactics. Carter blasted his way in, hurt Salas in Rounds 3 & 7, was the aggressor in all rounds except Nos. 11 & 12, when Salas rallied. Toward the end, far ahead on points, Carter coasted to victory...
...think it is quite obvious," he said, "that the current atomic-arms race can not go on forever. Somewhere along the line ... we will have acquired all the weapons we would possibly need to destroy not only the industrial ability of an aggressor to make war . . . but also his forces in the field. When this point is reached, and it is not in the unforeseeable future . . . [will] it enhance our chances to have enough [weapons and fissionable material] to defeat him 20 times over? I think not ... regardless of the number he may have...