Top 1200 Military Power Quotes & Sayings - Page 2

Our country regularly uses military force, but only a fraction of Americans serve in the military. This means fewer and fewer people have a direct link to the military, and yet it remains as important as ever that we have a rich understanding of what we are doing as a country.

Economic and military power can be developed under the spur of laws and appropriations. But moral power does not derive from any act of Congress. It depends on the relations of a people to their God. It is the churches to which we must look to develop the resources for the great moral offensive that is required to make human rights secure, and to win a just and lasting peace.

Pinochet took power in a 1973 military coup that the United States supported.

Air power is the most difficult of military force to measure or even express in precise terms.

Bush's war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties.

The true greatness of a nation lies in its character, not in its economic or military power.

China's limited military power is for the sake of preserving national sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity.

We have every interest in seeing that the military use of nuclear power will be contained.

The reality is that China is a much stronger power today, because the economic dimension has been added to the military and strategic one.

[Ayn] Rand accepts that when she supports military conscription, even indirectly. Also, she starts her politics from the premise that the State must have police power. She fails to take into account the inevitability that once you start with police power you're going to have a police State.

Tax the rich. End the wars. Break the power of lobbies in Washington. These are the demands of Occupy Wall Street. They are very important. The US corporations dominate Washington. The big oil companies, Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex - they rule this country and their influence and power has to be broken.

No self-respecting feminist could argue with the claim that the novel is more likely to accept existing power structures than not. But there's a vast difference, surely, between Dickens saying Indians should be exterminated and a Dave Eggers writing eloquently about the NSA, but not being as outspoken on American military power abroad.

I believe that the military-industrial complex is more important than ever. This is because the war in Kosovo gave fresh impetus not to the military-industrial complex but to the military-scientific complex. You can see this in China.

When my father went back into the military in 1947 and was gone for 3-1/2 years, my mother was 24 years old with four kids in a town she didn't know that well with no military services available, no family services available through the military, and that was the norm.

America stood at the summit of power, emerging from the Cold War as an economic, cultural and military force without equal.

In war, numbers alone confer no advantage. Do not advance relying on sheer military power.

There's no way that that our military power will not erode if a robust American economic revival is not part of the cards.

After the death of the sadistic dictator Gen. Sanni Abacha in 1998, Nigeria underwent a one-year transitional military administration headed by Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar, who uncharacteristically bowed out precisely on the promised date for military disengagement. Did the military truly disengage, however? No.

A free government with an uncontrolled power of military conscription is the most ridiculous and abominable contradiction and nonsense that ever entered into the heads of men.

Military dictatorship, you can focus on it, you can fight it directly. It's a band of power-driven people.

However formidable a military power you may be, you cannot impose upon a people anything against their will.

We should never hesitate to use military force, and I will not, as president, in order to keep the American people safe. But we have to use our military wisely. And we did not use our military wisely in Iraq.

Clearly the American military has been a force for good for the United States. There's a reason we have a standing military. But there's something to be said for having a much smaller military because then we wouldn't be tempted to get involved in things we shouldn't be getting involved in.

United States has comparative advantage in military force. It tends to react to anything at first with military force, that's what it's good at. And I think they overdid it. There was more military force than was necessary.

Suffice it to say that Wall Street investors in the drug industries have used the government to unleash and transform their economic power into political and global military might; never forget, America is not an opium or cocaine producing nation, and narcotic drugs are a strategic resource, upon which all of the above industries - including the military - depend. Controlling the world's drug supply, both legal and illegal, is a matter of national security.

Senator McGovern is very sincere when he says that he will try to cut the military budget by 30%. And this is to drive a knife in the heart of Israel... Jews don't like big military budgets. But it is now an interest of the Jews to have a large and powerful military establishment in the United States... American Jews who care about the survival of the state of Israel have to say, no, we don't want to cut the military budget, it is important to keep that military budget big, so that we can defend Israel.

We've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas.

The United States is not only number one in military power but also in the effectiveness of its propaganda system.

Donald Trump in Philadelphia, and he's delivering a very substantive speech on military preparedness, the status of the current military. He detailed the deterioration of the U.S. military in the past eight years and explained how he's going to rebuild it and why we need to, and it's a very tough audience. It's an expressly military audience, and they are of course listening for any sign that he's not really genuine here. I think, knocking this out of the park as far as that audience is concerned.

The world is a safer and better place that the United States is the strongest military power on earth. The stronger you are, the less likelihood you'll ever have to use it.

A major power can afford a military debacle only when it looks like a political victory.

The rapid rise of the People's Republic of China as a military and economic power is challenging the status quo.

U.S. power flows from our unmatched military might, yes. But in a deeper way, it's a product of the dominance of the U.S. economy.

All military and most commercial aircraft use our designs that process power from jet engines.

If there's ever an example that military power alone cannot be successful in Afghanistan, I think it was the Soviet experience.

[The loss-of-strength gradient is] the degree to which military and political power diminishes as we move a unit distance away from its home base.

A national standard for recognizing the occupational licenses of military spouses across state lines would have many potential benefits. It would help improve military family life, add to the economy, and, importantly, allow a military spouse to fulfill their career goals.

Power depends ultimately on physical force. By teaching people that violence is wrong (except, of course, when the system itself uses violence via the police or the military), the system maintains its monopoly on physical force and thus keeps all power in its own hands.

He possessed the power. He held it in his hand. A power stronger than the power of money or the power of terror or the power of death: the invincible power to command the love of mankind. There was only one thing that power could not do: it could not make him able to smell himself.

Our military and the strength of our military and the strengthening of our military is a number one priority for the Trump administration.

ISIS has a caliphate the size of Indiana! Also, US military has been totally gutted. Can't even project power anymore.

Without question, the balance of power on the planet today lies in the hands of business. Corporations rival governments in wealth, influence, and power. Indeed, business all too often pulls the strings of government. Competing institutions-religion, the press, even the military-play subordinate roles in much of the world today. If a values-driven approach to business can begin to redirect this vast power toward more constructive ends than the simple accumulation of wealth, the human race and Planet Earth will have a fighting chance.

(President Nixon,) in the face of a vote to impeach he might try, as "commander-in-chief", to use military forces to keep himself in power.

The necessary and wise subordination of the military to civil power must be sustained.

Not every threat to America's national interests can be addressed with military power.

Russia has had very aggressive military exercises. They've practiced mock nuclear attacks on Warsaw. Russian bombers practiced attacking strategic military targets in Sweden. The military aggression gets everybody nervous.

All military regimes use security as the reason why they should remain in power. It's nothing original.

The merging of the military-industrial complex, surveillance state and unbridled corporate power points to the need for strategies that address what is specific about the current warfare and surveillance state and the neoliberal project and how different interests, modes of power, social relations, public pedagogies and economic configurations come together to shape its politics.

In recent years the military has gradually been eased out of political life in Turkey. The military budget is now subject to much more parliamentary scrutiny than before. The National Security Council, through which the military used to exercise influence over the government is now a purely consultative body. But Turkish society still sees the military as the guarantor of law and order. The army is trusted, held in high regard - though not by dissident liberals. When things go wrong, people expect the military to intervene, as they've intervened over and over again in Turkish history.

By the power elite, we refer to those political, economic, and military circles which as an intricate set of overlapping cliques share decisions having at least national consequences. In so far as national events are decided, the power elite are those who decide them.

Simply put, we have to be smart about how we use our power. Not because we have less of it ? indeed, the might of our military, the size of our economy, the influence of our diplomacy, and the creative energy of our people remain unrivaled. No, it's because as the world has changed, so too have the levers of power that can most effectively shape international affairs.

We don't have any intention whatsoever to use military force to solve the Palestinian problem. But when it comes to terror - when it comes to terror, I believe that military - the right military steps is a very, very complicated kind of warfare, where I make every effort not to escalate the situation.

We are categorically against any new military nuclear power, be it Iran, be it North Korea, be it anyone.

I ran in 2006 as an opponent of the Iraq War, and I came to Congress to change overreliance on U.S. military power.

All over the world the barriers between what is inside an organisation and outside an organisation are being smoothed out. In the military, the use of contractors means that what is the military and what is not the military is smoothed out.

What is and isn't justified by military necessity is, naturally, open to interpretation. One of the key concepts, though, is the law of proportionality. A military attack that results in civilian casualties - 'collateral damage' - is acceptable as long as the military benefits outweigh the price that is paid by humanity.

I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.

All over the world, the barriers between what is inside an organisation and outside an organisation are being smoothed out. In the military, the use of contractors means that what is the military and what is not the military is smoothed out.

In truth the importance of U.K. airstrikes and the U.K.'s eight additional planes is more political than military. It is in honesty a micro military issue. There is no great military necessity for the U.K. to be involved since planes are queuing up from a wide range of countries over the skies of Syria.

I think the parallels of a giant power with overwhelming military superiority and might, with America and Rome, it seems obvious to me.