I think in national security, the war in Iraq is troublesome and a difficult challenge, but our troops and the military leaders we have are managing that situation, although it continues to be very risky and very dangerous.
We're quickly moving to the point where we will have no military bases in the Northeast, and this undermines support for the military. We are a nation of citizen soldiers.
U.S. Government propaganda tries to give the impression that aerial bombardment achieves near-surgical accuracy, so that military targets can be destroyed with minimal effect on civilians. Technical documents give a different picture.
I think most Americans believe that although it's better not to use military force if you can avoid it, that the world simply doesn't provide us the luxury of giving away military force as an important tool of foreign policy.
I am probably not alone in sensing above me the huge corporations and monstrous banks, science, politics and technologies, spy satellites and stock markets, military systems and massive wealth - forces and dynamics I don't understand or can hardly imagine.
Rich people don't like to be in the military. The shoes are ugly and the uniforms itch. Rich people don't go in much for revolution or terrorism, either.
From secrecy and deception in high places, come home, America. From military spending so wasteful that it weakens our nation, come home, America.
I support allowing homosexuals to serve openly in our military and eliminating the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy.
Poland, after the First World War, was beset by chaos, disorder, and a foolish incursion by the Red Army, which helped to produce the ultra-nationalist military dictatorship of General Pilsudski.
History offers no evidence for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to win wars, improve combat readiness, or promote national security.
Before statehood was achieved, Syria and Egypt had their tanks and military equipment lined up to invade Tel Aviv and destroy it; but the Israelis scrambled together an air force, some of it from old Second World War Messerschmidts, and the invasion was halted.
We do a hard fantasy as well as hard science fiction, and I think I probably single-handedly recreated military science fiction. It was dead before I started working in it.
We have a sufficient political class, and the military doesn't have to get involved in high national office. The days of doing that, post-Civil War and post-World War II, are gone.
Pakistan has done some really terrible things, and yet they also have facilitated our military capabilities in ways that are critical to our country.
Military strength in reserve is better than military strength being reigned upon the other side including all of its innocent civilians.
I therefore declare, that if you wish any remission of the taxation which falls upon the homes of the people of England and Wales, you can only find it by reducing the great military establishments, and diminishing the money paid to fighting men in time of peace.
This bill, this badly named ENLIST Act, would put out the advertisement that says, 'Sneak into America. Sneak into the military, and that's going to be the most expeditious path to American citizenship and the whole smorgasbord of benefits that come from American citizenship.'
Triumphant science and technology are only at the threshold of man's command over sources of energy so stupendous that, if used for military purposes, they can wipe out our entire civilization.
I believe we can and should have it all. Lower deficits but higher spending. More peace with a bigger military that goes off and kills terrorists and whatnot. A cleaner environment without forcing SUVs off the road.
More than 48 million men and women have served America well and faithfully in military uniform.
The use of military force against Iran would be very dangerous. It would be very provocative. The only thing worse would be Iran being a nuclear power.
'Smart power' is the use of American power in ways that would help prevent and resolve conflict - not just send our military in.
Grand economic theories rarely last more than a few decades. Some, if they are particularly in tune with technological or political events, may make it to half a century. Beyond that, little short of military force can keep them in place.
To avoid a military conflict, Saddam Hussein has no other choice than to leave the country.
Today, our brave military men and women, just as those who have gone before them, stand on alert, securing freedom at home and guarding the innocent abroad.
In our globalized world, our domestic prosperity depends heavily on the world economy, which, of course, requires stability and order. Who provides that stability and order? The U.S. military.
In this ever-changing world, it's more important than ever that our top-notch military continues to receive the resources needed to serve and protect our country.
Our military should spare no expense to ensure the safety of our troops, particularly as they confront a hostile insurgency and roadside bombs throughout Iraq.
The proportion between the velocity with which men or animals move, and the weights they carry, is a matter of considerable importance, particularly in military affairs.
Of all recent presidents, Clinton was expected to behave the most sensibly in economic matters. He understood how the economy works. But because he had used various dodges to stay out of the Vietnam War, he came to office ill at ease with the military.
Military organization, like religious organization, can be seen as a paradigm of organization in general.
Surely no issue unites us more than our appreciation for our military personnel who are bringing aid to devastated countries, defending us against terrorism, and fighting to make a free election possible in Iraq.
I am one of the million or more male residents of the United Kingdom, who a year ago had no special yearning towards military life, but who joined the army after war was declared.
As much as the constitutional argument matters to me, what really matters to me is this sort of moral question of can we order somebody to risk their lives about a military mission if we're not willing to debate, vote, and say that the military mission matters?
I submit that those who run the American military at the top, and those whose boots are on the ground and who run the machinery and equipment, are sending a signal: You asked us to do something. Give us some time and we will solve the problems and we will do it.
It is vital that Iraq and the United States together send the clearest possible signal that those who commit acts of violence against American military forces and American civilians will not be rewarded with amnesty.
