George W. Norris Quotes

One war at a time.

I remain committed to a balanced policy, which will protect our national interests both on our eastern border - I mean with Russia - and of course with the European Union.

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

We probably could more successfully resolve the North Korean nuclear threat through game-theoretic reasoning. We could successfully resolve what American leaders seem to perceive as an Iranian nuclear threat through game-theoretic reasoning.

I've been arguing this for months. This is not our war. This is not a war we should be in. Australia's better spending its time negotiating with North Korea.

It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope that the United States will become embroiled in the war.

Wars are often won by diplomats and businessmen—not soldiers

Britain will not get involved in a European war. Dreadnoughts have no wheels.

Diplomacy is important, extremely important, and I don't think these reductions at the State Department are appropriate because many times diplomacy is a lot more effective - and cert cheaper - than military engagement.

If the North Korean Communists provoke another war, we must immediately deter it and give them a decisive counterattack at the initial place of aggression.

I think what you can see is that we have worked very closely with China. China has really stood up in putting the pressure on North Korea.

My goal is to resolve the North Korean nuclear problem and solidify peace during my term.

I believe that dialogue is necessary. We were unable to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue through only the sanctions and pressure.

I think most Americans believe that although it's better not to use military force if you can avoid it, that the world simply doesn't provide us the luxury of giving away military force as an important tool of foreign policy.

We have treated our most serious adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea, in the most juvenile manner - by giving them the silent treatment. In so doing, we have weakened, not strengthened, our bargaining position and our leadership.

Too often in Washington we tend to see foreign policy as an abstraction, with little understanding of what we are committing our country to: the complications and consequences of endeavors.

Fourth, we might have declared an embargo against the shipping from American ports of any merchandise to either one of these governments that persisted in maintaining its military zone.

As a liberal and progressive, I abhor the notion of conflict and bloodshed and very much want to find a diplomatic solution to the Iran nuclear issue.

Let me remind you all that the first task of American foreign policy is to reduce threats to the United States.

Politics are very much like war. We may even have to use poison gas at times.

From 8,000 miles away... I would not judge a fellow soldier from a friendly nation and how they are employing their resources.

What we want is a lasting peace. We will oppose soft measures which invite the breaking of the peace.

I would not suggest the U.S. should sit down with the North Koreans bilaterally immediately after they've fired missiles - because the appearance is that you reward bad behavior. But if North Korea behaves for some period of time, I would pretty much favor direct talks.

People do not make wars; governments do.

Wars should be over in three days or less... and the American people must be all for it from the outset.