Peter Henry Goldsmith Quotes

Let's be clear: Neither Secretary Powell or I opposed the notion of removing Saddam Hussein by force, but we wanted to avoid the war if we could. But if we couldn't, the notion of removing Saddam Hussein from the scene seemed eminently sensible, given that you had, what, 16 or so U.N. Security Council resolutions basically saying the same thing.

We're not going to spread democracy at the business end of a M16 held by a 23 year old Marine.

Do the American people really want their President ... to have no other option than to go to war or do nothing?

The international community unfortunately did take sides in Libya, and we would never allow the Security Council to authorise anything similar to what happened in Libya.

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.

It’s hard to convince people you are bombing that you’re doing it for their own good.

International law seeks to avoid the use of force but does not preclude it.

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.

Preemption, democracy promoting and nation building have all been sullied by association by association with the War in Iraq.

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

We are not at war with Egypt. We are in an armed conflict.

One of the extraordinary features of the Blair government has been its slavish support for the central tenets of Bush's foreign policy - above all, the war in Iraq. During the Cold War, the Wilson government resisted the suggestion that it should send troops to Vietnam.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

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.

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

We have a model that we're following, and it's the Libya model.

In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself.

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.

My basic feeling about military intervention is that it should be a last resort, undertaken only to stave off large-scale bloodshed.

By linking these countries together in his 'axis of evil' speech, President Bush implied an identity between them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to deal with the threat. A lot of work will now need to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea.

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

War is but an instrument of international policy.

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.

… the financial cost of a [military] strike isn’t a reason to acquiesce in mass murder in Syria.

Nations drift into wars.