Noam Chomsky Quotes

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

… 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.

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.

In line with international law, only the U.N. Security Council could sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state are inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression.

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.

As a matter of international law, the United States is in an armed conflict with al-Qa'ida, the Taliban, and associated forces, in response to the 9/11 attacks, and we may also use force consistent with our inherent right of national self-defense.

If we have reason to believe someone is preparing an attack against the U.S., has developed that capability, harbours those aspirations, then I think the U.S. is justified in dealing with that, if necessary, by military force.

What the devil are we going to be at with this great fleet, and the reinforcements if ships and troops that are following? The Danes have done nothing hostile towards us … Would it be justifiable without any previous hostile act?

Pre-emptive war might fall within the framework of international law.

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.

Missile strikes - or any other such action - against a sovereign nation is an act of war.

I am not a pacifist and I would back a lawful, coherent and compelling case for the use of military force by the U.K. against Isis.

Declarations of war have never been a constitutional requirement for military action abroad.

The laws of war right now say that we can respond when our country is threatened. That is what international law says.

Preventive war is a crime not easily committed by a country that retains any traces of democracy.

A just fear of an imminent danger, though be no blow given, is a lawful cause of war.

No right can come by conquest, unless there were a right of making that conquest.

This resolution simply says Israel has the right to defend itself. This includes conducting operations both inside its borders and in the territory of nations that threaten it, which is in accordance with international law.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

As soon as one nation claims the right to take preventive action, other countries will naturally do the same. If we go down that road, where are we going?

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.

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

Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.