Ariel Sharon Quotes

If Israel sees weapons moving toward its border, it acts.

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’m not opposed to all wars; just dumb wars.

If the United States were attacked by rockets from one of our neighboring countries, we would be a lot tougher on them than Israel has been on the Palestinians. When we were attacked, we sent an army abroad and took over Afghanistan from the Taliban.

Mobilization is not aggression.… The aggressor is the one who renders inevitable the first shot, in other words the nation who first declares war.

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.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

What I've learned, and will try to remember from now on, is that defending your country's credibility is never sufficient reason to fight a war.

First, we could have defied both of them and could have gone to war against both of these nations for this violation of international law and interference with our neutral rights.

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.

I don't think a wise thing at this moment is for Israel to launch a military attack on Iran.

It was essentially for self defence that we went to war in Afghanistan and would go to war in Iraq.

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.

The doctrine of preemption has a long and distinguished history in the history of American foreign policy.

Nobody will be allowed to use Pakistan soil for any form of aggression toward any friend or foe.

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

Do we really want a world in which every country feels entitled to attack any other that might someday threaten it?

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.

One hour ago, President Johnson informed me that Egyptian forces are preparing an attack on Israeli positions and that this attack is to be launched. If such a thing happens, then the United States will consider itself freed from the commitments it gave to the USSR to exercise restraint.

… 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.

The United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.

It’s not only time to It is time not to take force off the table… It is time to put force on the table and use it

The United States will never take part in an aggressive war.

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.