Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
What a difference 60 years makes. Now it is the United States that is the unprovoked aggressor.

Though we did not "sneak" attack Iraq, we were nevertheless completely unprovoked. (Unless, of course, you count violation of U.N. resolutions as a provocation for invasion and occupation ... in which case, where is our invastion of Israel???).

First, the context for a UN resolution is more important than a UN resolution itself. In case you don't remember, we had already gone to war against Saddam in 1990. At the end of the war (in 1991), Saddam made an agreement. The agreement was not lived up to on his part, even 10 years later. This newest war was to continue enforcing the previous. That hardly fits the definition of "unprovoked" (unless you consider the first Gulf War to have been unprovoked). (And don't bother arguing that there were no "WMDs" since we actually did find some and because Saddam had played his games for 10 years by the point this new war began.)

Secondly, and more importantly if you ask me, when you consider Saddam's spoken threats aimed at the United States, his strong support of terrorism, and his vast amount of wealth (oil), you could easily argue that he posed a very large threat to the United States and its interests. When attacking a clear threat like that, I believe it is equally clear that we can consider our nation "provoked."

You can disagree if the war in iraq was the wisest decision if you ask me. You can argue that the war was not run well (as do I), but to claim that it was "unprovoked" is ridiculous. I'm sorry.