There was unprecedented elite condemnation of the plans to invade Iraq. Sensible analysts were able to perceive that the enterprise carried significant risks for U.S. interests, however conceived.

There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.

I’m not saying that love always takes you to heaven. Your life can become a nightmare. But that said, it is worth taking the risk.

Prophets of doom have always taken risks in terms of ridicule and humiliation. If you stand on a street corner holding up a sign that reads ‚The End Is Near,‘ passersby will laugh and heckle. People will say you’re like Chicken Little, running around telling people the sky is falling.

You have to take risks. We will only understand the miracle of life fully when we allow the unexpected to happen.

Some international law specialists compare the invasion of Iraq to the ‚crimes against the peace‘ for which Nazi leaders were indicted at Nuremberg.

I don’t think that experience is a very useful or convincing attribute for a sensible foreign policy. Henry Kissinger had a lot of experience.

The U.S. has strategic and economic interests in Southeast Asia that must be secured. Holding Indochina is essential to securing these interests. Therefore, we must hold Indochina.

Philanthropy should be taking much bigger risks that business. If these are easy problems, business and government can come in and solve them.

There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet.

He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life.

Prophesy is a good line of business, but it is full of risks.

Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks.