When would you act to save the lives of hundreds of thousands in Sudan? Congo? All the other African failed states whose populations are decimated because of war, famine, and indifference - and therefore breeding grounds for terrorist groups to infiltrate and gain sanctuary?
Do you turn a blind eye to them as well or are you using those examples to complain about how the US should act there versus acting in Iraq.
Do you complain about how the real need to stop terrorism should have led to an invasion of Iran, not Iraq, without realizing that invading Iran was not only exceedingly difficult task to accomplish, but nearly impossible without having a ground route to work with. There is no gateway from which to launch a ground invasion of Iran without first going through Iraq. People who make this argument ought to read maps - topological ones are even better - when making the argument. If you read the maps, you'd see that Iran is surrounded by mountains from numerous directions, and its borders with Afghanistan is rugged mountains, over which it would be nearly impossible to transport the heavy armor necessary to spearhead an invasion from that direction. Ditto for its common border with the former Soviet republics. That's not even getting into the logistics of getting US and coalition equipment into position from which to launch the invasion.
Further, you'd have to explain how to invade Iran without D-Day sized amphibious assault capability that doesn't exist anymore, how you'd invade by land with heavy armoured divisions that have to come from somewhere, and how you'd maintain your logisitics for the entire endeavor. If someone is going to present an invasion of Iran as a credible alternative, the least that person can do is suggest how it would be done.
Go To Page: 1 2
