John Major Quotes

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

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

On the justification for the war, it wasn't related to finding any particular weapon of mass destruction.

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.

Let's be clear: Neither Secretary Powell or I opposed the notion of removing Saddam Hussein by force, but we wanted to avoid the war if we could. But if we couldn't, the notion of removing Saddam Hussein from the scene seemed eminently sensible, given that you had, what, 16 or so U.N. Security Council resolutions basically saying the same thing.

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.

The major wars that the U.S. became involved in are all ethically defensible.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

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

There is such a thing as legitimate warfare: war has its laws; there are things which may fairly be done, and things which may not be done.

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

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

Are there really good wars and bad wars? We thought so during World War II, and in retrospect, we were right. But in Vietnam, and Iraq we were wrong.

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

We did not go to war in Afghanistan or in Iraq to, quote, 'impose democracy.' We went to war in both places because we saw those regimes as a threat to the United States.

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

… 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 think the whole policy of pre-emptive war is a serious, serious mistake.

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.

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

In searching for a rationale to go to war, Bush settled on the notion of Saddam as an incarnation of evil, basically, and convinced himself that Saddam was fundamentally Adolf Hitler reborn. I think his feelings towards Saddam were in fact quite genuine and quite legitimately hostile. He was not play acting.

I will always be an advocate in terms of wars of necessity. I am just much more cautious on wars of choice.

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.

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

It is now conventional wisdom that Americans do not care why we went to war in Iraq, that it is enough that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein.