Daniel Patrick Moynihan Quotes

Today, war of necessity is used by critics of military action to describe unavoidable response to an attack like that on Pearl Harbor that led to our prompt, official declaration of war, while they characterize as unwise wars of choice the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the current war in Iraq.

Americans must not be given the impression that they have a duty to go to war against every evil leader in the world and against every transgression of the international order.

We believe in peace, but we are not pacifists. Sometimes we have to use force

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.

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

Pre-emptive war might fall within the framework of international law.

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.

I think it's appropriate for the international community in situations like this to intervene in Kosovo. I am in favor of an intervention. On some level, you have to say that at least somebody is doing something.

I’m not opposed to all wars; just dumb wars.

If it must come to war, I argue that the world should respond through the United Nations. This is the best way to give legitimacy to the use of force in these circumstances.

Regime change cannot be the objective of military action.

The preemptive use of force has always been part of international law.

There are bad people all over the place, and we really can't have a war each time just to get rid of one of these bad people.

Every war I have ever covered – Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone and Liberia – withstood all diplomatic efforts to end it until Western military action finally forced a resolution.

In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, not does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defence.

When you look at where the Democratic field is going relative to foreign policy, they are increasingly moving away from a policy of pre-emptive self-defense that the president has adopted since September 11.

I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you're sure of what you're doing and you're working with allies.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

We all say no to war, we are all for justice and peace. But sometimes in order to maintain peace, armed action is necessary. But we hope it won't be the case.

What I've learned, and will try to remember from now on, is that defending your country's credibility is never sufficient reason to fight a war.

The rules of engagement have become so rigid that governments often straightjacket themselves in the face of unambiguous aggression.

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

I think, unfortunately, we live in a world where people attack other people and I think a legitimate rationale for war is the saving of human life, the saving of lives of people who cannot defend themselves.

Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and more broadly that they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.

War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.