Peter Schuyler Quotes

America must continue diplomacy, even as we continue the war, to expand the coalition of the willing to share the burden of war and to share the responsibility and the economic cost of rebuilding Iraq.

We, Britain and Germany, can neither of us be happy about our handling of the Iraq war.

War as Napoleon knew it just not possible any more. However, we're very unlikely to accept or recognize 'world peace' even when we get it.

We've made some mistakes in this country in times past - the Korean conflict proceeding that, some say proceeding the Persian Gulf War, where we were ambiguous as to what we would do.

One of the enduring mysteries of America's occupation of Iraq is why a nation that so little relishes peacekeeping nonetheless refuses to turn the job over to the United Nations.

War is not, in itself, a condition so much as the symptom of a condition - that of international anarchy.

Britain does not normally these days play a huge part in peacekeeping.

I still think it would be a great mistake to go into a war without support of our friends and allies.

We are a country that has many friends, many allies, when we operate in the world, we operate with friends and allies that's been true for decades and if we wind up going to war in Iraq it will be true in Iraq.

Intervention continues to be a prominent dimension of the post-cold war world.

I look forward to strengthening the U.S.-U.N. partnership and working closely with Secretary of State Kerry towards our shared goals of peace, development, and human rights.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots. Or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

The possibility of the United States winning the war and losing the peace is real and serious

For nearly 7 decades United States has been the anchor of global security. This is meant more than forging international agreements. It has meant enforcing them.

It is entirely clear that there is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force.

Working as a Foreign Office lawyer in 2003, I was less worried by the quibbling over U.N. resolutions on Iraq than the coalition's capacity to effect positive change.

The U.N. is capable of endless process and mindless psychobabble, but as far as getting the job done on the ground, I just don't see them doing it.

In a multipolar world, there must be more powers capable of taking responsibility, the U.S. and Europe must be able to unite to achieve peace in the Middle East.

War is much too serious a thing to be left to military men.

The U.N. is one of many competitors in a marketplace of global problem solving.

The United Nations will be at the heart of our international activities. France will assume its full responsibilities at the Security Council by putting its status at the service of peace, respect for human rights and development.

I have concluded that the U.N. can do a few things well.

I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war - certainly, the French president, Jacques Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD.

In the euphoria after the Cold War, there was a misplaced notion that the UN could solve every problem anywhere.

To solve the problem of organizing world peace we must establish world law and order.