If peace is equated simply with the absence of war, it can become abject pacifism that turns the world over to the most ruthless.

I can think of no faster way to unite the American people behind George W. Bush than a terrorist attack on an American target overseas. And I believe George W. Bush will quickly unite the American people through his foreign policy.

It is frankly a mistake of amateurs to believe you can gain the upper hand in a diplomatic negotiation.

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.

I don't consider China a communist state, no. I know that sounds paradoxical, but it's my view.

The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose.

I think an appeal to American idealism and willingness to sacrifice would be an important contribution, because what is happening now in many countries, not yet in the United States, but in many European countries, it's the inability of government to ask for sacrifices of its people.