Denis Villeneuve Quotes

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

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations—acting individually or in concert—will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

We have to ask if it is once again the summer of 1914. Small acts of terror in the Middle East, in South Asia, could lead to cataclysm as they did in Sarajevo.

As I watch what is happening in the Middle East and the carnage that comes over our television screens every evening, I cannot help but ask myself, what is wrong with humankind that we cannot stop the killing?

Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder.

We can't go all over the world killing people because we disagree with them.

The international community unfortunately did take sides in Libya, and we would never allow the Security Council to authorise anything similar to what happened in Libya.

Each and every day, Israel's very existence is at stake.

I think that war is diplomacy by other means, for sure, and there have been wars that have been fought for righteous reasons. There are wars that have had to be fought, and there will probably continue to be.

You cannot be politically correct in a war.

International law seeks to avoid the use of force but does not preclude it.

Any state surrounded by enemies will seek strategic depth.

Borders cannot be redrawn in blood.

The question in my mind then is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many.

There is every prospect that events arising out of our growing foreign investment will present us in the future with decisions involving war and peace, will bring us, whether we like it or not, to concern ourselves with distant causes.

What starts in the Middle East never stays in the Middle East..

I'm not saying it was wrong to intervene in Kosovo.

If the U.S. and its allies can invade a weaker country on the excuse it is abetting terrorism, then why should not India, say, launch a pre-emptive strike against Pakistan on the self-same grounds?

Those of us who are most genuinely repelled by war and violence are also those who are most likely to decide that some things, after all, are worth fighting for.

You just have to come to grips with the fact that people don't like to be invaded or bombed by anybody. And America has been engaged in that.

In war, in some sense, lies the very genius of law. It is law creative and active; it is the first principle of the law. What is human warfare but just this, - an effort to make the laws of God and nature take sides with one party. Men make an arbitrary code, and, because it is not right, they try to make it prevail by might. The moral law does not want any champion. Its asserters do not go to war. It was never infringed with impunity. It is inconsistent to decry war and maintain law, for if there were no need of war there would be no need of law.

We should see the [Kosovo] war as a valuable opportunity. Never before have the Europeans or the Americans taken us so seriously.

The borders of Islam are bloody.

In the wars of the European Powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy to do so.

If the whole of the 20th century has taught us anything, it has taught us that borders must be respected.