Jeez, how much more difficult can you get than our situation in Iraq?
A lot. A whole lot. Massively more.
All (except Venezuela) have REAL weapons of mass destruction, Nukes, and the ability to deliver them on a moments notice.
Which is a big part of (although not the only reason) why such an invasion would be more difficult, and less likely to produce any positive results. Preventing someone from getting nukes, doesn't risk the nukes being used against you. Invading someone who already has nukes, increases the risk that you will be a nuclear target.
If you wanted to propose an alternate target to Iraq, Iran's about the only one that makes any sense. It doesn't have nukes yet but is trying to get them. It's one of the largest supporters of terrorism. Its abusive to its own people.
OTOH 1 - It didn't violate a cease fire agreement after a war with the US, and it didn't initiate an invasion against any of its neighbors, so there is less justification for any invasion, and 2 - Its a bigger country, and more difficult to deal with, any military involvement would be costlier, and less likely to have a positive result. Also, arguably its people are more free in many ways, although that issue is rather complex, and at times their are unjust crackdowns and impositions of strict religious law.
re: The fact that they have more capability is more an argument against invading them then for.
Yeah lets just have wars against people that are no danger to us. That makes a lot of sense.
Someone who is little or no immediate danger to us, but who appears to be becoming a danger (and who has acted aggressively in the past) is exactly the target you would go for, if your going to go for anyone in an "optional" war.
The idea that we should have invaded France, or China, or even Pakistan instead is ludicrous. They have given us much less reason to invade, and the invasion is more likely to be strongly against our interest.
Also such suggestions are red herrings that you don't really support, and just about no one else does. The idea that it would somehow be better if we had 300,000 American deaths rather then 3,000 makes for a rather weak argument. |
