Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Here's an good example of just that. To rational people "Pearl Harbored" would mean a sneak attack. The invasion of Iraq was hardly a secret. Saddam and the whole world knew it was going to happen months in advance.
|
Pearl Harbor - attack another nation without a declaration of war. Attack another nation without any provocation for war. How it is done tatically is irrelevant. In the original Pearl Harbor, the emotional hype the sneak attack part. But the strategic importance of a Pearl Harbor attack is significant. It is also why Robert Kennedy said he understood how Tojo felt. The invasion of Cuba would not have been a secret. But we almost 'Pearl Harbored' Cuba. Again without declaration of war but at least with a purpose.
Iraq was invaded for no reason - other than the greater glory of George Jr. There was no declaration of war. There was no legal authorization for war. As the Secretary General said, the invasion of Iraq was illegal. One cannot get much closer to meeting the definition of 'Pearl Harbor'.
Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. Fine. A beautifully executed tactical manuever. But what makes Pearl Harbor so wrong lies in no declaration of war, no justified reason for war, and done only for the greater glory of the supreme leader. Three reasons apply both to Japan's attack at Pearl and to US invasion of Iraq. The US 'Pearl Harbored' Iraq.