Ron Paul Quotes

The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort?

The main thing I say on war is that we need to obey the law and formally declare 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.

Democracies do not go to war. War is not our expression of thought.

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

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

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.

We are not at war with Egypt. We are in an armed conflict.

At every step the vast majority have expressed horror at the idea of an aggressive war.

Don't invade Iraq. Inspections work, war won't.

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.

No military timetable should compel war when a successful outcome, namely a disarmed Iraq may be feasible without war, for example by allowing more time to the UN inspectors.

Genius, scholar, and war hero though he is, you have to admit - or maybe you should think about admitting - that George Bush might have rushed things a little in invading Iraq.

I voted no on the resolution to give the president authority to go to war against Iraq. I was able to apply caveat emptor. Most of my colleagues could not.

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

If it must come to war, I argue that the world should respond through the United Nations. This is the best way to give legitimacy to the use of force in these circumstances.

Except in case of attack by armed forces … the people shall have the sole power by a national referendum to declare war or to engage in warfare overseas.

The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper and safe judges of whether a war ought to be commenced, continued or concluded.

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.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots. Or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war.

I don’t think we should go to war with one person’s authority..

The question really is what action we take which lessens the chances of a nuclear exchange, which obviously is the final failure…. You have:, A blockade without any declaration of war A blockade with a declaration of war Strikes One, Two and Three We’ve got invasion

It is entirely clear that there is only one way in which great wars can be permanently prevented, and that is the establishment of an international government with a monopoly of serious armed force.

How is it that nations composed of people who don't want war are continually fighting?" The answer is that the opinion against war has been without adequate institutions to give it effect. War is an international affair; and to prevent it there must be international opinion, and international action upon that opinion, and international institutions to give effect to that opinion.