Algernon Sidney Quotes

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

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

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

I feel like war should occur only for the most vital and necessary reasons, and only then.

The only defensible war is a war of defense.

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

In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign. Secondly, a just cause. Thirdly, a rightful intention.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

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.

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.

The argument that someone is a bad man is an inadequate argument for war and certainly an inadequate and unacceptable argument for regime change.

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.

War, except in self-defense, is a failure of moral imagination.

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.

If our interests - our legitimate interests, the interests of Russians - have been attacked directly, like they were in South Ossetia, for example, I do not see any other way but to respond in accordance with international law.

For a war to be just three conditions are necessary - public authority, just cause, right motive.

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.

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

When a soldier goes to war he has to have a moral justification for killing the other side.

For a war to be just, three conditions are necessary—public authority, just cause, right motive.

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

… 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.

We draw the sword with a clear conscious and clean hands! Our invasion of Belgium is contrary to International Law, but this wrong – I speak openly – that we are committing – that we are committing – we will make right as soon as our military objective has been attained.

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.

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