Barack Obama Quotes

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

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.

There are, however, cases in which, while our own interests are not greatly involved, strong appeal is made to our sympathies.... in extreme cases action may be justifiable and proper. What form the action shall take must depend upon the circumstances of the case; that is, upon the degree of the atrocity and upon our power to remedy it.

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.

I did not support the U.S. decision to intervene with military force in Libya. The evidence was not persuasive that a large-scale massacre or genocide was either likely or imminent. Policies other than military intervention were never given a full chance.

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

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

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

Would it not be worthwhile to pause a moment before we commit ourselves to war at the pleasure of other nations in whose councils we shall have but one vote?

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

There will be times … when our safety will not be directly threatened, but our interests and values are …. In such cases, we should not be afraid to act.

… a visceral fear of appeasement has led to entirely avoidable disasters

I know I will be severely criticized by the interventionists in America when I say we should not enter a war unless we have a reasonable chance of winning.

A decision by the government to arm the rebels in Syria ought to be taken as carefully as one to commit British troops. It is akin to war, albeit by proxy, and must be treated with equal seriousness and meet the tests for a just war.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

If Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us anything in recent history, it is the unpredictability of war and that these things are easier to get into than to get out of, and, frankly, the facile way in which too many people talk about, 'Well, let's just go attack them.'

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.

It is one thing to be against unilateralism and against nonhumanitarian interventionism - but it is quite another thing to be against humanitarian interventionism.