Quote

Preemption is the right of any nation in order to preserve its National Security; however, preemptive war is a tactic, not a strategy. When used as a strategy preemption dilutes diplomacy, creates an atmosphere of distrust, and promotes regional instability.

If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force.

I think it is wrong that we went against The U.N. and that we have alienated our allies and invaded a country that hasn't threatened us, that it is a pre-emptive strike.

We will never abdicate the security of the United States to a foreign country or refrain from taking action when appropriate. But we cannot ignore the reality that cooperative counterterrorism activities are a key to our national defense.

In international affairs, you never threaten things you're not prepared to do.

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.

As the Chief of the Defence Staff says, you don't defend on the goal line. Defending the interests of the U.K. means tackling threats early and at source, and that means intervening overseas.

I think the whole policy of pre-emptive war is a serious, serious mistake.

There is no better way to give comfort to an enemy than to divide the people of a nation over the issue of foreign war. There is no shorter road to defeat than by entering a war with inadequate preparation.

When under attack, no country is obligated to collect permission slips from allies to strike back.