I said, "Bearded Bruce", that "those who launch wars are fully responsible for the results".

That includes Japan for invading China and later attacking the USA, Britain, and the Dutch East Indies (regardless of what Roosevelt did, and, YES, he certainly did provoke them). The Japanese military government had led them into a series of unjustified aggressions which eventually got them into a huge mess they couldn't get out of.

Germany was informed in absolutely clear terms by the UK and France in 1939 that a declaration of war by the UK and France on Germany would follow a German attack on Poland. Hitler chose to ignore that and he brazenly invaded Poland anyway. He tried to call what he foolishly took as the British and French "bluff". He was therefore fully responsible for the disastrous results...which eventually included Allied counter-invasions of German-occupied continental Europe and of Germany. Once a war is underway, one invasion may certainly follow another, depending on who is winning, right? I'm saying that he who launched the first invasion in the series is primarily (if not exclusively) responsible for the mess that follows.

In a similar sense, Saddam was responsible for the mess that followed his attacks on Iran and Kuwait (although the USA certainly took advantage of the situation anyway for their own gain in that region...and they may have deliberately helped to sucker Saddam into thinking he could get away with attacking Kuwait, but who knows?).

Likewise, as far as I'm concerned, the Israelis are primarily responsible for the mess that they made in Lebanon....twice now. I do not for a moment buy the excuse that some pinprick, puny little attacks by Hezbollah were the real reason for Israel's recent drive into Lebanon...they were the excuse for it, that's all. It did not pay off nearly as well as expected. Another miscalculation on someone's part.

Some historical comments, just as a matter of interest:

Germany never invaded the UK or North America simply because they were never effectively able to. They didn't have the naval strength necessary to pull it off. The Allies never invaded mainland Japan, because it turned out not to be necessary to do so in order to secure total victory. Who needs an invasion when the other guy has already agreed to an unconditional surrender??? ;-)

Why, gosh, if the British had just unconditionally surrendered to Hitler in 1940...then the Germans could have occupied Britain without ever invading them too! ;-) About as likely as the moon turning into green cheese, but it's fun thinking about hypotheticals, isn't it?

While there is often some wrongdoing and much hypocritical posturing on both sides in the leadup to a war...I am saying that the power which launches the first all-out conventional military attack(s) or invasion(s) in that war is the power primarily responsible for what follows.