Cindy Sheehan Quotes

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

The decision to use military force should always be one made with the utmost caution, with U.S. interests at stake, and with the consent of Congress.

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.

If there is no direct threat why are we invading?

We all say no to war, we are all for justice and peace. But sometimes in order to maintain peace, armed action is necessary. But we hope it won't be the case.

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

The Second World War is and was constantly being drudged up by Blair and Bush to rationalize the invasion of Iraq.

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

Most wars, after all, present themselves as humanitarian endeavors to help people.

You could argue that war is always an irrational act, and yet many states enter into military conflict out of rational calculation or national interest or the stability or longevity of their regime.

The only defensible war is a war of defense.

I think we need to ask serious questions about how we engage militarily, when we engage militarily, and on what basis we engage militarily. What kind of intelligence do we have to justify a military engagement?

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.

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

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