Linda Colley Quotes

If Americans are entitled to hit Iraq unilaterally, then why isn't Russia entitled to the same with respect to Georgia? Why is China not entitled to the same with respect to some other neighboring country which, according to Chinese views, may be supporting insurrection in Tibet or Shenyang? Why, say, India is not entitled to hit Pakistan, which openly supports terrorists in Kashmir and which has nuclear weapons, and which has a very fragile domestic situation under which fundamentalists any day can come to power

My speculation is that the U.S. does not want to establish the principle that it has to defer to some higher authority before carrying out the use of violence.

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.

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.

The utterly fallacious idea at the heart of the pro-war argument is that it is the duty of the anti-war argument to provide an alternative to war. The onus is on them to explain just cause.

I believe in not attacking a country pre-emptively unless you're sure of what you're doing and you're working with allies.

Every state has not only the right but the duty to make adequate provision for its own defense in the way it thinks best, providing it does not do so at the expense of any other state.

Washington has openly declared its right to unilateral use of force anywhere to uphold its own interests.

If America has the right to target Osama bin Laden, or terrorists, of course Israel has the right to defend itself from terrorism.

What is the 'noble cause' for which you sent our country to war?

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.

I think we need to ask serious questions about how we engage militarily, when we engage militarily, and on what basis we engage militarily. What kind of intelligence do we have to justify a military engagement?

The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis for our War on Terrorism.

Governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate self defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted.

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.

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

War itself is justifiable only on principles of self-preservation:

We believe US threats of an approaching World War III and their use of Iran's nuclear issue as an excuse is another form of American insanity.

… the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

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

Wars of necessity are essentially unavoidable. They involve the most important national interests, a lack of promising alternatives to the use of force, and a certain and considerable price to be paid if the status quo is allowed to stand. Examples include World War II and the Korean War.

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

It is important to recognize the differences between the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. The treatment of those detained at Abu Ghraib is governed by the Geneva Conventions, which have been signed by both the U.S. and Iraq.

The war against terrorism should not be used to interfere with an independent, sovereign state. We need to identify concrete terrorist targets and do no harm to civilians.