Gilbert K. Chesterton Quotes

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

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

It is not every cause of war that should lead to war.

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

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.

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 don't believe America will justifiably make an unprovoked attack on another nation. It would not be consistent with what we have been as a nation or what we should be as a nation.

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

A sane person doesn't think war is a good idea. I'm not a pacifist. I feel that there are situations where fighting is inescapable, but we don't go looking for those things.

We believe in peace, but we are not pacifists. Sometimes we have to use force

The nation is too brave, too strong, too powerful, and too just to engage in an unrighteous and precipitate war.

A rational fear of an imminent danger is said to be a justifiable cause of war.

… 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.

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

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.

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.

War, in our country, ought never to be resorted to but when it is clearly justifiable and necessary; so much so as not to require the aid of logic to convince our understanding nor the ardour of eloquence to inflame our passions. There are many reasons why this country should never resort to it but for causes the most urgent and necessary.

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

Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder.

War on the other hand is such a terrible thing, that no man, especially a Christian man, has the right to assume the responsibility of starting it.

If we justify war, it is because all peoples always justify the traits of which they find themselves possessed, not because war will bear an objective examination of its merits.

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.

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 think that war is diplomacy by other means, for sure, and there have been wars that have been fought for righteous reasons. There are wars that have had to be fought, and there will probably continue to be.