Moon Jae-in Quotes

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.

There is no reason that Iraq should be at war with Israel.

When our vital interests are challenged, or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act; with peaceful diplomacy whenever possible, with force when necessary.

A United States President should never, never, never, never threaten the use of force unless he is prepared to follow up.

If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.

What strategic benefit would accrue from having Montenegro as an ally that would justify the risk of our having to go to war should some neighbor breach Montenegro's borders?

The president had a press conference about this this week and he said that the U.S. has no plans to attack North Korea. And then he added, 'Like having no plan ever stopped me before.'. He has something even more deadly in store for them - we're going to bring them democracy.

Unilateral preemption should not in any way be the model for how we conduct international relations.

Countries that intervene militarily rarely do so out of pure altruism.

We have a model that we're following, and it's the Libya model.

It was essentially for self defence that we went to war in Afghanistan and would go to war in Iraq.

The Arab League tells us to go in and take out Qaddafi. We've spent billions of dollars already with respect to the Arab League. Billions of dollars, because they told us to do it. Why aren't they paying for it? They don't like Qaddafi, Qaddafi's been a terrible thorn in their side.

The doctrine of preemption has a long and distinguished history in the history of American foreign policy.

You should never take military intervention off the table. When you do so, you give an out to a rogue nation or rogue actors.

By linking these countries together in his 'axis of evil' speech, President Bush implied an identity between them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat. A lot of work will now need to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea.

More commonly, states choose to ally themselves with the United States out of a desire for U.S. protection from a regional threat. The United States has long be an attractive ally against intimidating neighbors: it is strong enough to shift a regional balance of power, and it generally does so without conquering its allies in the process.

Would it not be worthwhile to pause a moment before we commit ourselves to war at the pleasure of other nations in whose councils we shall have but one vote?

Americans must not be given the impression that they have a duty to go to war against every evil leader in the world and against every transgression of the international order.

If Americans are entitled to hit Iraq unilaterally, then why isn't Russia entitled to the same with respect to Georgia? Why is China not entitled to the same with respect to some other neighboring country which, according to Chinese views, may be supporting insurrection in Tibet or Shenyang? Why, say, India is not entitled to hit Pakistan, which openly supports terrorists in Kashmir and which has nuclear weapons, and which has a very fragile domestic situation under which fundamentalists any day can come to power

America’s military bases around the world are centers of stability in unstable regions.

There are two things that are very expensive in international relations: promises when they succeed and threats when they fail

We're not trying to start a war; we're trying to send a political message.

Is a military solution the only way to stop nations from doing bad things?

The United States is proud of her remoteness from the old world, her freedom from entanglement in its quarrels, her isolation. Yet in her relatively very short history as an independent state she has fought at least six foreign wars while her troops have landed on foreign soil on nearly a hundred occasions. Not one of those wars was for the purpose of defending American soil.

The United States understands that under the statement in the preamble or under the terms of this treaty there is no commitment to armed force, no alliance, no obligation to join in any defense.