Security Council Resolutions Quotes

U.N. Security Council resolutions are only as effective as their enforcement.

As the Palestinian leadership never seems to pay any penalty for its words, America's seriousness about the peace process is in doubt.

Another mess I inherited, and we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran who has totally taken advantage of our previous administration, and they're the world's top sponsor of terrorism, and we're not going to stop until that problem is properly solved, and it's not properly solved now.

The U.S. - the idea that the U.S. has introduced and imposed principles of international law, that's hardly even a joke. The United States has even gone so far as to veto Security Council resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. That was in the 1980s under Reagan.

You don’t go for a vote in the Security Council unless you know that you have the votes to win.

Declarations of war have never been a constitutional requirement for military action abroad.

I don't think there's going to be peace as long as Israel is occupying land that belongs to the Palestinians, to Lebanon and to Syria.

In order for the U.N. to be effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council. And we will work with people on the Security Council to achieve that objective.

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.

It doesn't serve an American interest. It really doesn't really serve Israeli interests - it serves the interests of the political party that's getting the votes of the settlers on the West Bank.

Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it wasn't available, achievable was because Arafat wouldn't accept it.

For the last eight years, American policy toward Iraq has been based on the direct threat Saddam poses to international security. That threat is clear. Saddam's history of aggression leaves little doubt that he would resume his drive for regional domination and his quest for weapons of mass destruction if he had the chance.

The Hamas organization is unwilling to honor the obligations that the Palestinian Authority has signed.

The purposes of the United States should not be doubted. The Security Council resolutions will be enforced - the just demands of peace and security will be met - or action will be unavoidable. And a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

I believe we should use all means necessary to prevent the acquisition or fabrication of nuclear weapons by countries or groups hostile to the U. S. We should act in concert with our allies who are similarly working to protect their countries.

When a country harbors or assists terrorists, that nation forfeits its sovereignty.

The Israelis object to an imposed settlement I don't know what they mean by an imposed settlement. It's quite obvious, without the all out support by the United States in money and weapons and so on the Israelis couldn't do what they've been doing. So we bear a very great share of the responsibility for the continuation of this...of this state of warfare.

Many defense experts have predicted that we face no greater threat from a single country than from Iran.

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

We are very serious about imposing weapons restrictions on the PFLP and other Palestinian groups operating from their camps in Lebanon.

We started the peace process on the basis of land for peace and on the basis of U.N. resolution 242 and 338,1 as well as other international decisions on achieving the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

No American ambassador has produced more Security Council Resolutions on the issue of Iran than John Bolton.

Kim Jong-Un is a dangerous leader, without a doubt. And both Republican and Democrat administrations have been completely ineffective in dealing with him. So we must continue to isolate him. We will need China as part of that strategy.

Governor Dean has no policy on Iraq evidently, except 'no.' 'No' is not a policy.

If we have the kinds of confirmation that we need, we will once again work with the international community and the organization charged with monitoring compliance by the Syrian government, and we will reach out to patrons of Assad like Russia to put a stop to it.