Noam Chomsky Quotes

The preemptive use of force has always been part of international law.

International law seeks to avoid the use of force but does not preclude it.

Americans must not be given the impression that they have a duty to go to war against every evil leader in the world and against every transgression of the international order.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder.

The Liberals have been pressing for the brief on the basis of which he said there was authority for war.

The United Nations charter gives every nation the right to self defence, therefore when the American embassies were bombed it was a matter of time before the Americans responded by going for what they suspected were the causes of the attack.

Today, war of necessity is used by critics of military action to describe unavoidable response to an attack like that on Pearl Harbor that led to our prompt, official declaration of war, while they characterize as unwise wars of choice the wars in Korea, Vietnam and the current war in Iraq.

I think that war is diplomacy by other means, for sure, and there have been wars that have been fought for righteous reasons. There are wars that have had to be fought, and there will probably continue to be.

There are only two cases in which war is just: first, in order to resist the aggression of an enemy, and second, in order to help an ally who has been attacked.

We believe the use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the UN Security Council, has no grounds, including legal grounds.

It is not every cause of war that should lead to war.

If you recognize the right of every nation to construe for itself what is aggressive war and what is defensive war, you have not accomplished much by agreeing to renounce war.

… it was not necessary to make any definition of "aggressor" or "self-defense." I do not think it can be done, anyway, accurately. They have been trying to do it in Europe for six or eight years, and they never have been able to accurately define " aggressor " or " self-defense.

Every nation has a right and duty to defend itself against unjust aggression. Offensive war of any kind is not morally justifiable.

It is a mortal sin for a Catholic to become or remain a member of an organization or society, which arrogates to itself the right to bear arms or to use them against another state.

If every small nation with a border dispute believes they can go ahead and launch a pre-emptive war and that it will be approved by the greatest power, that is a very dangerous thing.

You just don't, in the 21st century, behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text.

If we can kill Saddam, we should.

I have always thought that Israel, as an independent and sovereign nation, had a right to defend itself.

Russia has been entirely proportionate in its military response to Georgia's attack on Russian citizens and peacekeepers.

I think, unfortunately, we live in a world where people attack other people and I think a legitimate rationale for war is the saving of human life, the saving of lives of people who cannot defend themselves.

If Pakistan has any ideas of annexing any part of our territories by force, she should think afresh. I want to state categorically that force will be met with force and aggression against us will never be allowed to succeed.

When under attack, no country is obligated to collect permission slips from allies to strike back.

Some in my party threaten to send a message that they don't know a just war when they see it, and more broadly that they're not prepared to use our military strength to protect our security and the cause of freedom.