Top 1200 Us Foreign Policy Quotes & Sayings - Page 14

For as long as I can remember, we've been having debates about the foreign policy disasters and seemingly unsolvable problems around the world. Dinner conversations are replayed over generations - nothing seems to get better, and in some aspects, it seems dramatically worse, and that is especially true for women.

Obama's entire foreign policy was predicated on the notion that by existing, he would bridge all gaps and bury all hatchets. Instead, the Muslim world burns his picture even as he tells them he respects their radicalism. It turns out that diversity is a one-way street for the devotees of global Islam.

The war on terror, sometimes known as the 'Global War on Terror' or by the clunky acronym GWOT, became the lens through which the Bush administration judged almost all of its foreign policy decisions. That proved to be dangerously counterproductive on several levels.

In Syria, a progressive foreign policy would have shown military restraint while pumping up our ability to gain political leverage over Syria's benefactors and providing humanitarian funding to make sure that anybody that wanted to leave Syria could.

After Secretary Clinton announced in January 2010 that Internet freedom would be a major pillar of U.S. foreign policy, the State Department decided to take what Clinton calls a 'venture capital' approach to the funding of tools, research, public information projects, and training.

I see this piece of legislation as essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign nation. ...I think it is another example of a flawed foreign policy that we have followed for a good many decades.

Presidents are afraid to lose wars. They're afraid to be outflanked on the right by the militarists. They don't want to be seen as soft on either communism or soft on terrorism or whatever. So presidents are constantly tugged away from their domestic commitments to foreign policy.

There is this group of people who love innovation. Those people want to innovate, and they think the Internet is a wonderful tool for innovation, which is true. But you also have to remember that much of that innovation is constrained within the realities of the foreign policy.

The US has unthinkingly embarked upon a neoimperial policy that must involve us in virtually every great war of the coming century-and wars are the death of republics. If we continue on this course of reflexive interventions, enemies will one day answer our power with the weapon of the weak-terror, and eventually cataclysmic terrorism on US soil.

On foreign policy, President Obama has kept our nation safe from terrorism and restored our standing in the world. When it comes to one of our closest allies - Israel - President Obama has been resolute.

We can tell the general public that the gold and foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank are not designed to finance the economy, but rather to ensure foreign trade turnover. Therefore, we need this level to be able to provide the necessary foreign trade turnover for such an economy as Russia's for a period of at least three months.

The United States should.... avoid unilateral export controls and controls on technology widely available in world markets. Unilateral controls penalize U.S. exporters without advancing U.S. national security or foreign policy interests.

I think there are a lot of Republicans who recognize that investment in adolescent girls and empowering them is good for our foreign policy. When they're educated, they tend to give back more to their communities, to rise out of poverty in a way that is good for their families and their communities and, ultimately, their countries.

In the period after the Second World War, there were still leaders in Europe who represented weak countries, but possessed a sense of global foreign policy. Nowadays, on the other hand, there are politicians who represent pretty powerful countries, but whose citizens are not prepared to sacrifice themselves for the state.

Wherever there is injustice, there is anger, and anger is like gasoline - if you spray it around and somebody lights a matchstick, you have an inferno. But anger inside an engine is powerful: it can drive us forward and can get us through dreadful moments and give us power. I learnt this with my discussions with nuclear policy makers.

Bitumen, the new national staple, is redefining the character and destiny of Canada. Rapid development of the tar sands has created a foreign policy that favours the export of bitumen to the United States and lax immigration standards that champion the import of global bitumen workers.

I'm very careful not to isolate Israel on this but to make this part of a transformed foreign policy where we apply the same standards across the board. So it's not just Israel. It's also Saudi Arabia, it's also Egypt. It's where there are massive and systemic violations of human rights and international law.

As long as Nature is seen as something outside ourselves; frontiered and foreign, separate, it is lost both to us and in us. It follows that to achieve a society in harmony with Nature, we must be guided by respect for it.

Let us waive that agitated national topic, as to whether such multitudes of foreign poor should be landed on our American shores;let us waive it, with the one only thought, that if they can get here, they have God's right to come.

We need to recognize that although terrorism is real, there are many other dangers out there. And terrorism should not be the only driver or necessarily the leading driver of our foreign policy and especially of our domestic politics.

Keep in mind that Eric Alterman is media critic for The Nation-a hysterically left-wing magazine dedicated to the proposition that corporate America, U.S. foreign policy and the Republican Party are criminal, racist or both. The simple reality is that, for him, the Democratic Party is far too conservative.

The Senate are a branch of the treaty-making power, and by consulting them in advance of his own action upon important measures of foreign policy which may ultimately come before them for their consideration, the President secures harmony of action between that body and himself.

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

Foreign policy is about trying to deliver for them the best possible economic benefits, the chance to travel, to study, to work, the opportunity through trade to be able to sell their goods and services and as much peace and security so they can live and bring their kids up so they don't have to fear war.

As president, Barack Obama has the potential to finally bring our country together to meet the enormous challenges ahead. This includes restoring economic prosperity, moving toward energy independence, delivering affordable health care for all, and implementing a responsible, effective foreign policy.

'Anthems' was a harsh indictment of American foreign policy; the video for the first single featured an American flag engulfed in a pool of oil, imagery which might have been risque in 2002, but seemed unimaginably passe in the last year of Bush's presidency.

Steve Hadley is an interesting option as secretary of state because he is somebody that is, you know, familiar to power, served in the White House, and did not oppose Donald Trump the way a lot of the Republican foreign policy establishment did. But his name was not on that list, at least at the moment.

Nothing human is foreign to us

I would not waste five years of my life in order to send to the Israeli readers a simple message such as, "Let us change a policy or stop the settlements," Or, "Let us strive for peace." This is not what it is about.

We can pursue peaceful diplomacy with the Iranian regime while also continuing our maximum economic pressure campaign, while also defending ourselves... To say that it's a war with Iran or nothing is just a fundamental misunderstanding of how foreign policy actually works.

It should never be the goal of U.S. foreign policy towards any country to have a - quote, unquote - "good relation." Then what? What do we get out of that? We get - Trump is helping the approval ratings amongst Russians. How does that advance American national security interests?

I travel a lot on foreign policy, as you know. I'm in Europe a lot. I travelled over a million miles as vice president. They didn't do stimulus. Look where they are. Come on. I mean, this is like, I just get so frustrated. Like come on.

During the campaign, Trump in many ways repudiated President Obama's national security and foreign policy approach on issues like the Iran nuclear deal and immigration. So there's a real question of continuity or disruption with Trump, which wouldn't have existed if Clinton was president-elect.

Traditionally, you support your nominee for president, and so when I went to Cleveland, I gave a strong speech about Hillary Clinton and her devastating foreign policy, but also in the support of the nominee. I think that's an obligation that we have to support the nominee.

Throughout the 20th century, the Republican Party benefited from a non-interventionist foreign policy. Think of how Eisenhower came in to stop the Korean War. Think of how Nixon was elected to stop the mess in Vietnam.

The world is set up - as foreign as that can be to some people who are very materialistic - but there is a force in this world, once we step into it, that opens doors for us, that gives us a sense of purpose and the greatest life there is, in my view.

It was Reagan who began the realignment of American politics, making the Republicans into internationalist Jeffersonians with his speech in London at the Palace of Westminster in 1982, which led to the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy and the emergence of democracy promotion as a central goal of United States foreign policy.

I will aim to restore the Japan-U.S. alliance and Japan's strong diplomatic capabilities. Japan can't pursue a strong foreign policy without strengthening its alliance with the United States.

We must shift the energy policy debate in America with an increased focus on alternative and renewable fuels and Congress must pass meaningful alternative fuels and incentive programs to help move the U.S. away from dependence on foreign oil.

I would like to have a Europe that has a strong foreign and defense policy, ensures economic growth and is active in addressing the issues of the refugee crisis. But perhaps not one that imposes new regulations on allergens that requires food menus to be changed everywhere. When that happens, it creates the feeling that the wrong priorities are being set.

Foreign policy exactly suits Obama's strong points as a leader, which turn out not to be giving the masses a clear sense of direction and hope, but instead exercising good judgment on a case-by-case basis while thinking many steps ahead of the present moment.

For my generation the relationship with Europe was the central point of American foreign policy. Even during my time in government there was disagreement, sometimes very strong disagreement. But they were all like arguments within a family. I am not sure if the generation which doesn't have these experiences has the same view of things.

During his presidency, Truman and the Republicans were locked in a series of furious assaults on each other that outraged him and made Truman an enduring foe of a party and its representatives, which he saw as on the wrong side of almost every domestic and foreign policy issue he considered important.

Despite unprecedented levels of technological advancement and the interconnectedness of the world, the pursuit of truth in the realms of foreign policy and national security remains a critical issue. This is because the level of 'noise' that must be sifted through has also reached an unprecedented size and scope.

German predominance is not all-encompassing. In foreign affairs and military matters, for instance, France and Britain still play a much bigger role. But across a large swathe of European policy, Germany has become much more than a first among equals.

Unhappy voters thought the anemic economy, Obamacare, the collapse of U.S. foreign policy, the scandals in government, and the incompetent handling of everything from the Islamic State to Ebola were the only real issues. Democrats'?? refusal to acknowledge them did not make these failures go away.

Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us the spirit of resistance, has made us think we cannot look after ourselves or put up a defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes and families.

One of the things you learn in government is there's a long tail to American decision-making when it comes to foreign policy. Moving the embassy to Jerusalem, pulling out of the Iran deal, pulling out of Paris, not speaking up for democratic values - the world doesn't end the next day.

Foreign culture is as necessary to the spirit of a nation as is foreign commerce to its industries.

The international community lies at the center of the Obama foreign policy. Unfortunately, it is a fiction. There is no such thing. Different countries have different histories, geographies, necessities, and interests. There's no natural, inherent, or enduring international community.

Because I am foreign I was assigned to the foreign desk. I kid you not, its true.

The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney worked at the State Department during the presidency of George W. Bush. While in Congress, Cheney has focused on pushing a Bush-era foreign policy, particularly in support of continuing the Afghanistan and Iraq wars indefinitely.

I do find it funny, actually, why I'm not more of a Corbyn fan. I am a classic Corbyn fan, really. Not so much on the foreign policy, but I'm leftwing, pro-immigration, pro-welfare spending, there's very little that we wouldn't agree on.

Foreign policy that is obviously guided by interests, but that is very much also committed to shared values, so we have a platform, democracy, freedom, respect of human rights that we would like to see respected all over the world and also, a peaceful world order.

No other continent has endured such an unspeakably bizarre combination of foreign thievery and foreign goodwill.

There are hundreds of fine journalists who regularly inform us of what is happening in the world around us; and innumerable commentators who provide intelligent and objective insight on public policy matters.

Both World War II and the subsequent Cold War gave America's involvement in world affairs a clear focus. The objectives of foreign policy were relatively easy to define, and they could be imbued with high moral content.

For decades, conventional wisdom in the United States held that it was only a matter of time before China would become more liberal, first economically and then politically. We could not have been more wrong - a miscalculation that stands as the greatest failure of U.S. foreign policy since the 1930s.

There's a question of building trust, and I think that President Barack Obama offers trust. Personally, I think he is a transparent individual with the right intentions. So I think things are going to change in terms of U.S. foreign policy, especially with respect to Latin America.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's strategy is to lead from behind. It sounds like what he is outlining is not to lead at all. We cannot continue to outsource foreign policy. We must lead. We are the most powerful nation in the world. We need to begin to act like it, again.