At the risk of sounding redundant...

Another fantastic article at Lew Rockwell's site. Worth the read if only for the interesting contrast between VMI and the military acadamies. But as usual, the writer just makes his point clearly, with little room for any logical dispute.

The plain truth is that Iraq never attacked the United States and never even threatened to do so. Neither the Iraqi people nor their government had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the U.S. government had no moral or legal right to invade Iraq and kill and maim the Iraqi people. That makes the United States the aggressor nation in this conflict. It is the invader. It is the conqueror. Don’t forget that aggressive war was punished as a war crime at Nuremberg and that it is barred by the UN Charter, to which the United States is a signatory. Don’t forget also that Bush invaded Iraq without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, making the war illegal under our own form of government.

And it was never about democracy, freedom, or the liberation of the Iraqi people. After all, if democracy was so important, would U.S. officials be embracing the military dictator of Pakistan as well as authoritarian dictators all over the Middle East? And if the freedom and well-being of the Iraqi people were so important, would U.S. officials have continued maintaining the sanctions against Iraq year after brutal year, despite the ever-growing number of deaths of Iraqi children?

Just a quick glance at the draft Iraqi Constitution is enough to show this isn't about 'Liberty'. A war based on no legal or moral grounds.. your children are dying for nothing. But to declare that makes me 'un-patriotic', one who does not support the troops.

Frankly, I think the opposite is true - it is most patriotic to stand up and say the government is wrong when it is, and it is certainly supportive of the troops to not want to send them into danger for no good reason.