Dominic Raab Quotes

I don't know that there is much the United States can do except work with the international community.

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.

The purpose of the United Nations should be to protect the essential sovereignty of nations, large and small.

I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today will last five days, five weeks or five months, but it won't last any longer than that.

We are a country that has many friends, many allies, when we operate in the world, we operate with friends and allies that's been true for decades and if we wind up going to war in Iraq it will be true in Iraq.

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.

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

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.

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

The Great Seal was an early proclamation of 'humanitarian intervention,' to use the currently fashionable phrase.

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.

The U.N. is much more than the case of Iraq.

One of the enduring mysteries of America's occupation of Iraq is why a nation that so little relishes peacekeeping nonetheless refuses to turn the job over to the United Nations.

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.

War is not, in itself, a condition so much as the symptom of a condition - that of international anarchy.

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

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

I believe in a strong national defense. But it's my belief that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan poses a threat to national security, and we shouldn't be involved in either area.

The advance guard in the campaign for peace that America wages today must be the State Department.

So I've gone in and out of the U.N., working on counter-terrorism, on U.N. reform, on peacekeeping, peace and security issues, many things through the years but always with a strong interest in humanitarian issues, and human rights issues as well.

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