John Amery Quotes

Nor should the U.S. military be forced to remain in Iraq essentially as an army for one side of a civil war.

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.

I don’t see why it would take more troops to occupy the country than to take down the regime.

If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country I never would lay down my arms,--never! never! never!

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

Setting aside human rights and international law to have an agenda of war and killing and occupation to me is totally unacceptable.

Being an occupier is not good for anybody's global standing. It is a catalyst for terrorist recruitment.

It was helpful to have the American troops there in great strength. They knew there'd be consequences if they didn't move back. Now, there has been some removal of the foreign forces.

You gotta love the names. They're so eager, earnest, and hopeful: Camp Prosperity, Camp Liberty, and Camp Victory are the names of just a few of the U.S. military bases in Baghdad.

I'm just very wary that once you start military operations in any country, it's very difficult to predict what the outcome is.

The U.S. must renounce any U.S. interest in constructing permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

The main reason for the armed resistance is the American military presence.

The presence of American troops is fueling the insurgency in Iraq, as acknowledged by General Casey and numerous other experts, and is helping terrorist recruiters build their numbers across the globe.

With Vietman, we found ourselves involved there before we really understood what was going on.

From the very beginning, the American republic has never shrunk from foreign wars …. There has scarcely been a year since its founding that American soldiers haven’t been overseas … American foreign policy largely consists of doctrines about when and where to intervene in other people’s countries.

We're not going to spread democracy at the business end of a M16 held by a 23 year old Marine.

There are two things that will always be difficult for a democratic people to do: to start a war and to finish it

We sit there because there is a war going on. But once we have peace we don’t want to be sitting on your Suez Canal.

A U.S. invasion of Iraq could turn the whole region into a cauldron, and thus destroy the war on terrorism. A military campaign very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation.

I would hope that we have in place the adequate resources to become an army of occupation because you’re going to walk into chaos

Isn’t it clear that the British government has no policy of our own in Iraq and that we are totally dependent on the policy of the United States?

Whether you think we belong in Iraq or not, we can’t tune it out.

The government has decided that the same force would be employed in America as if the inhabitants were French or Spanish enemies

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”