Jill Stein Quotes

Disarming Iraq is legal under a series of U.N. resolutions. Iraq is in flagrant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

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

War is no picnic. Wars should be prevented, and if you can't prevent them, you have to put them off.

Our primary objective must be to prevent wars, and when we fail in this, we must protect and assist the innocent victims.

Every government has as much of a duty to avoid war as a ship's captain has to avoid a shipwreck.

We must wake up to the insane reality of our time. We are all irresponsible, unless we demand from the responsible decision makers that modern armaments must no longer be made available to people whose former battle axes and swords our ancestors condemned.

The main thing I say on war is that we need to obey the law and formally declare war.

We hear so much about weapons of mass destruction. But nine out of 10 war victims are killed by guns. It's the AK-47 that's a weapon of mass destruction.

I think the disarmament of Iraq is inevitable.

For ultimately, the only way to win wars, is to prevent them occurring in the first place.

Disarmament of itself does not produce peace or security. Only removing the source of conflict does.

We are calling for a ban on weapons deliveries to countries listed as human rights violators, to governments that are engaged in wars of aggression, military occupation, and annexation and spend more money on weapons than on education and health care.

I have a scheme for stopping war. It's this -- no nation is allowed to enter a war till they have paid for the last one.

If we had less statesmanship, we would get along with fewer battleships.

Although war cannot be ended, wars can.

It’s not only time to It is time not to take force off the table… It is time to put force on the table and use it

If you use weapons of war to bring about peace, you're going to have more war and destruction.

It's impossible to start making a weapon only when the war already started!

I abhor Saddam's regime, but the basis has to be disarmament.

Armament should be an illegality everywhere, and some sort of international force should patrol a treaty-bound world. Partial armament is one of those absurdities dear to moderate-minded 'reasonable' men. Armament itself is making war. Making a gun, pointing a gun, and firing it are all acts of the same order. It should be illegal to construct anywhere upon earth any mechanism for the specific purpose of killing men. When you see a gun it is reasonable to ask: 'Whom is that intended to kill?'

Lightly armed nations can move toward war just as easily as those which are armed to the teeth, and they will do so if the usual causes of war are not removed.

For some years I have spent my time on exactly these questions - both in thinking about ways to prevent war, and in thinking about how to fight, survive, and terminate a war, should it occur.

I think it is tragic that a situation should arise where civilians on any side are killed. But it is almost a cliche to say that it is virtually unavoidable and this isn't unique to us alone.

Some think the worst horrors of war might be avoided by an international agreement not to use atomic bombs. This is a vain hope.

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.