Philip Kerr Quotes

Western powers remain imprisoned by the idea that the world is a dangerous place, that it needs to be managed, and that they are called upon to do the managing.

When the world lacks muscular and wise American leadership, it devolves into total chaos, which, in turn, produces unspeakable evils.

It is one thing to be against unilateralism and against nonhumanitarian interventionism - but it is quite another thing to be against humanitarian interventionism.

I don't think we would have had to be an occupying power if we had done the right thing in 1991.

I think America has more than enough maturity and intelligence to start exercising its world leadership responsibly.

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

As the U.S., the world is questioning why not end it, and so if, in fact, we were to pull out, the world would definitely question why we did this to begin with. But I still believe the world would call upon us for help if they needed it.

The United States can't go in and impose order on chaos every place in the world.

The main thing that endears the United Nations to member governments, and so enables it to survive, is its proven capacity to fail, and to be seen to fail. If there is something you are expected to do, but don't want to do, or even have done for you, you can safely appeal to the UN in the comfortable certainty that it will let you down.

We have no desire to be the world's policeman. But America does want to be the world's peacemaker.

It [the UN] has given uniquely valuable services in many places where violence threatened. It is the only real world forum where we have the opportunity for international presentation and rebuttal…. The United Nation deserves our continued firm support.

America cannot be the world's policeman. But we must reject the new isolationism that says: don't help anywhere, because we cannot help everywhere.

There is, and there will be, an increasing demand for a principled global security provider, for a superpower that believes in multilateralism and cooperation.

I do think the U.S. has a moral and political leadership role to play.

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.

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

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.

It is vital that Iraq and the United States together send the clearest possible signal that those who commit acts of violence against American military forces and American civilians will not be rewarded with amnesty.

I talked about the need for American leadership, I talked about the importance of the United States to a more peaceful world, a world that has been quite turbulent in recent years, and needs a strong American anchor.

American foreign policy, for all its shortcomings, has underpinned political stability around the world.

If I have any choice I would prefer Western Troops.

Before and during the first phase of the war his administration repeatedly maligned the UN but now, that Iraq has turned into a quagmire, it is asking the UN for help.

First, we could have defied both of them and could have gone to war against both of these nations for this violation of international law and interference with our neutral rights.

The U.N. can be very frustrating and at times impotent, but it can also be a valuable forum for discussion and resolution of world problems. We should not walk away from it just because it's failed to live up to its promise.