The statement, four sentences long, argues that an American attack would ultimately hurt the security and standing of the United States, even if it succeeds.

The last of it was not a question, but a statement, and one Jennsen could not argue.

The statement also argued for policy reforms to build extraction capacity, encourage market solutions, and promote accountability.

The statement on the "rumors of Tor's compromise" argued that Filiol's data was significantly flawed.

The statement also argued that denying the Holocaust would not help the Palestinian cause.

The statement argued that museums, as the guardians of artifacts from civilizations around the world, had become international institutions with missions that transcended national boundaries.

It was not clear whether the statements implied total pacifism or simply argued that war was always tragic.

Their statement argued for a multipolar world and against any country's seeking hegemony.

The bishops' statement also argued that "reform should rely on incentives."

The statement argued that the agreement would reduce the nation's trade deficit and support the consolidation of democracy in Central America and the Caribbean.