military restraint Quotes

War … inevitably hurts the innocent …. Deliberate targeting of civilians may be prevented, but the nature of real war is that accidental collateral damage is a regular cost of doing business. Accidental death and destruction can be reduced by improved technology or restraints on strategy, but it cannot yet be eliminated in any war of consequences.

War is just a racket... I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else.

In Syria, a progressive foreign policy would have shown military restraint while pumping up our ability to gain political leverage over Syria's benefactors and providing humanitarian funding to make sure that anybody that wanted to leave Syria could.

I am for relying for internal defense on our militia solely till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may protect our coasts and harbors from such depredations as we have experienced; and not for a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment; nor for a navy which, by its own expenses and the eternal wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burthens and sink us under them.

It would be a mistake to link anything that Israel does to a certain circumstance. And it is a mistake to feel comfortable in any circumstance just because Israel did not act on it.

Resolved, by the general assembly of Virginia, that in view of the imminent danger of civil war, this assembly, in behalf of the commonwealth of Virginia, ask respectfully, on the one hand, of the president of the United States, and on the other, of the authorities of each of the southern states, to the end, that if possible, peace may yet be preserved; that they will reciprocally communicate assurances in response to the general assembly of Virginia, now in session, that the status quo of all movements tending to occasion collision, and concerning the forts and arsenals of the nation, shall, on either hand, be strictly maintained for the present, except to repel any actual aggressive attempt.

We want no wars of conquest; we must avoid the temptation of territorial aggression.

We’re not the world’s policeman. Nor the world’s judge, jury and executioner.

My experience is that if the military didn't want to use force and was confronted with a president that did, the military would come back with what I would call the 'bomb Moscow' scenario. They would say it had to be done with conditions that were so extreme, you obviously wouldn't do it.

We don't want to start a nuclear war unless we really have to, now do we Jack?

I am so restrained in all my military movements that it is impossible to undertake anything effectual

I'm post-cynical on this stuff. I look at the El Salvador model as the glory days: Why don't we just fund the death squads secretly and keep our boys at home? That where I almost am at this point. Clearly the American military has been a force for good for the United States. There's a reason we have a standing military. But there's something to be said for having a much smaller military because then we wouldn't be tempted to get involved in things we shouldn't be getting involved in.

The Constitutional Convention debated whether America should even have a standing army. ... They worried that a powerful military could rival civilian government for power in our new country, and of course they worried that having a standing army around would create too much of a temptation to use it.

Clearly the American military has been a force for good for the United States. There's a reason we have a standing military. But there's something to be said for having a much smaller military because then we wouldn't be tempted to get involved in things we shouldn't be getting involved in.

We still seek no wider war.

Military strength in reserve is better than military strength being reigned upon the other side including all of its innocent civilians.

If the Hamas people had the opportunity, they would kill the maximum number of Israelis, which would be all. And, Israel has the opportunity to kill way more, and they do not.

We call for a welcoming path to citizenship, an end to police violence, and a transformed foreign policy based on international law and human rights - not based on these policies of regime change and economic and military domination.

For 2,500 years, India has never invaded anybody.

My proudest accomplishment was that I never dropped a bomb, fired a bullet, or shot a missile.

One of the most basic principles for making and keeping peace within and between nations. . . is that in political, military, moral, and spiritual confrontations, there should be an honest attempt at the reconciliation of differences before resorting to combat

...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics-that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.

The United States is not looking for a way to launch war.

The issue isn't the accuracy of the bombs you have, it's how you use the bombs you have - and more importantly, whether you ought to use bombs at all.

As a matter of fact, although we had some terrible challenges and temptations when I was in office, we never dropped a bomb... we never launched a missile... and we never fired a bullet. I think that one of the main requirements for a strong military, like a strong submarine force, is to prevent war, not to cause war.