Military Involvement Quotes

My generals are always right about other people’s wars and wrong about our own.

I had top-secret clearance and everything. I was working on a couple of projects that would keep me involved in Desert Storm. I was in the mix, which is scary.

With 450,000 U.S. troops now in Vietnam, it is time that Congress decided whether or not to declare a state of war exists with North Vietnam

Syria: It’s a messy civil war and we should not be involved in it.

I'm pretty actively involved with the military because I think they're incredible human beings. If I can give back to them for what they're doing for us, it's a good thing. And I think to have happy soldiers, you need to feed them well.

Politicians do not enter into wars lightly. It is usually the military themselves who are keener to become involved.

I think Americans are aware that they are involved in all sorts of violence around the world. They normally don't want to look at that.

The American people deserve answers about Benghazi before we move forward with military involvement in Syria's civil war.

Let's put America first. Let's not spill American blood to fight the enemies of other countries as is the case in Syria.

I oppose U.S. military intervention in Iraq. I believe that we should not send troops or engage in air strikes-our nation's military involvement needs to be over. The United States has already spent billions of dollars in Iraq while our nation has endured a crumbling infrastructure, cuts to our social programs, a lack of investment in job training and creation, and sadly, a failure to take care of our veterans. Let's focus our resources at home. Over 4000 men and women have sacrificed their lives for Iraq. That is enough.

We must all realise that the Israeli society is a military society - men and women. We cannot describe the society as civilian .... they are not civilians or innocent.

For a long time, it was believed that war was waged by armies which could not be identified with the nation itself. Professional soldiers took upon themselves the job of defending national interests, and it was understood that the war affected only them; the country itself went on living and working.

The War on Drugs employs millions - politicians, bureaucrats, policemen, and now the military - that probably couldn't find a place for their dubious talents in a free market, unless they were to sell pencils from a tin cup on street corners.

If in order to avoid further Communist expansion in Asia and particularly in Indo-China, if in order to avoid it we must take the risk by putting American boys in, I believe that the executive branch of the government has to take the politically unpopular position of facing up to it and doing it, and I personally would support such a decision.

No one will involve the army in political processes!

The Yanks are coming And we won’t come back till it’s over Over there!

I think there's a need for the participation of the military for the stability of the transformation period of Burma. If the military and the people do unite together for the sake of our country, we can reach the development of our country in a very short time.

Moammar Gadhafi and the revolt against Gadhafi was not started by the United States. It was started by the Libyan people. And the reason why I argued we needed to get involved is because he was going to go one way or the other. And my argument then was proven true, and that is, the longer that civil war took, the more militias would be formed and the more unstable the country would be after the fact.

Our forces will not be on the sidelines.

World War III is a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.

Let's face it, the U. S. mission in Somalia has changed from saving lives to saving face.

The humanitarian argument is so selective I find it difficult to swallow. It's not even so much about the choice as to where we should get involved and where we shouldn't. The minute you start arming people in these conflict zones, like Iraq and Afghanistan, things don't go as expected.

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

We have a sufficient political class, and the military doesn't have to get involved in high national office. The days of doing that, post-Civil War and post-World War II, are gone.

The military has been tremendously important in the past during catastrophes and in protecting the population. But it shouldn't become an auxiliary police force.