Tim Kaine Quotes

The terrorist threat to American troops has decreased in some ways because there's not 175,000 in a dangerous part of the world. There's only 15,000.

Within 120 days, we’ll win this war and get all U.S. troops out of the country, except 30,000

We don't have enough American troops inside of Iraq to destroy ISIL any time soon.

American troops have not only occupied Ulster but are arriving in increasing numbers in England.

In World War II in Germany, we had a ration for one U.S. soldier, or one allied soldier for every twenty inhabitants. The ratio in Iraq is about one for a hundred and sixty.

The stationing of U. S. troops abroad on a permanent basis in foreign military installations is the kind of thing that should not be done without the approval of the Senate.

We have to go in and win this war quickly, and then be prepared to help stabilize Iraq over an indefinite period, five to ten years, at a minimum, I believe, using a large fraction of American forces. This is a major undertaking that likely would require a total of 150,000 troops and could stay above 100,000 for several years

Someone should tell the president that U.S. forces would need to be in Iraq for two to five years, and they will not have an easy time there.

There are no American combat troops in Cambodia. There are no American combat advisers in Cambodia. There will be no American combat troops or advisers in Cambodia.

My dear Fuhrer: Everyone in England is profoundly moved by the bloodless solution to the Czechoslovakian problem. People not so much concerned with territorial readjustment as with dread of another war with its accompanying bloodbath. Frederick the Great was a great popular figure. I salute your Excellency’s star which rises higher and higher.

In practice, the U.K.'s most consistent strategic objective in relation to Iraq was to reduce the level of its deployed forces.

Withdrawal of US troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public: The more US troops come home, the more will be demanded.

We now have only 31 brigade combat teams or 490,000 troops. And only one-third of combat teams are considered combat-ready. That's not good for our country. I actually don't even like saying it because plenty of countries are watching us right now, but we'll get it shaped up very quickly.

Before we put an American in harm's way, tell us why. No one wants to see the region descend into further chaos. There's a lot of concern about getting embroiled in another Vietnam and ... about sending American troops once again to fight someone else's war.

The administration does not agree with those who suggest we should deploy hundreds of thousands of American troops to engage militarily in a ground war in Iraq.

I agree with the president [Barack Obama]. I've said myself, we will not send American combat troops back to either Syria or Iraq - that is off the table.

Look at the violence in Pakistan and the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan: the more troops we put in the more violent Pakistan becomes.

We are not putting ground troops into Iraq ever again. And we're not putting ground troops into Syria. We're going to defeat ISIS without committing American ground troops.

I was not in favor of U.S. troops in Lebanon. And I voted against it.

If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave.

I think the American people should know there's already strong influences toward another deployment of American troops in an open-ended commitment.

Some people say, therefore, that violence and war are inevitable. I say rubbish: Our brains are fully capable of controlling instinctive behavior.

I am guilty of believing that the human race can be humanized and enriched in every spiritual inference through the saner and more beneficent processes of peaceful persuasion applied to material problems rather than through wars, riots and bloodshed.

There's a disconnect there between - you're telling me this [war in Iraq] is fight of our generation, and you're going to increase troops by 10 percent. And that's gonna do it. I'm sure what [George W.Bush] would like to do is send 400,000 more troops there, but he can't, because he doesn't have them.

The only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that.