Robert McNamara Quotes

We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo - men, women and children. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?

It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.

It is natural that I should bear entire responsibility for the war in general, and, needless to say, I am prepared to do so. Consequently, now that the war has been lost, it is presumably necessary that I be judged so that the circumstances of the time can be clarified and the future peace of the world be assured. Therefore, with respect to my trial, it is my intention to speak frankly, according to my recollection, even though when the vanquished stands before the victor, who has over him the power of life and death, he may be apt to toady and flatter. I mean to pay considerable attention to this in my actions, and say to the end that what is true is true and what is false is false. To shade one's words in flattery to the point of untruthfulness would falsify the trial and do incalculable harm to the nation, and great care must be taken to avoid this

War justifies everything.

I realized early that unless you're willing to kill the innocent, you can't win.

If one thinks only of winning, a sordid victory will be worse than a defeat. For the most part, it becomes a squalid defeat.

We live in a world where everyone thinks they do the right thing, so they are entitled to do the wrong thing. So ends can justify the means.

One to destroy, is murder by the law; and gibbets keep the lifted hand in awe; to murder thousands, takes a specious name, 'War's glorious art', and gives immortal fame.

They were targeting those people I referred to as 'little Eichmanns.' These were legitimate targets.

It's one thing to say don't commit atrocities on the battlefield. It's another thing to say don't get caught doing atrocities.

Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.

If victory has a hundred fathers, it also brings forth a hundred advisors.

The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.

Our rulers do wrong from choice and right from necessity.

Important is not what is right, but what wins.

What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were there not innocent civilians there? We are simply taking the rules of engagement that you have invented and turning them back against you.

Poison gas meant that the war could be brought to an end sooner and thus reduce the number of casualties.

If the ends don't justify the means, what does?

For a good cause, wrongdoing is virtuous.

War is a grim, cruel business, a business justified only as a means of sustaining the forces of good against those of evil.

Nothing in Chomsky's account acknowledges the difference between intending to kill a child, because of the effect you hope to produce on its parents (we call this “terrorism”), and inadvertently killing a child in an attempt to capture or kill an avowed child murderer (we call this “collateral damage”). In both cases a child has died, and in both cases it is a tragedy. But the ethical status of the perpetrators, be they individuals or states, could not be more distinct For Chomsky, intentions do not seem to matter. Body count is all.

I worry that when you start quoting Machiavelli to justify your actions, you have ceased to be one of the good guys. No, quoting Nietzsche does that. Machiavelli is just cool.

It might or might not be right to kill, but sometimes it is necessary.

Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million and you're a conqueror.

But the nature of the universe is such that ends can never justify means. On the contrary, the means always determine the end.