Quote:
Originally posted by baltassoc
Iran and NK are more dangerous than Afghanistan. So we should have invaded them before Afghanistan.
|
Iran and NK are potentially more dangerous than Afghanistan. Not Iraq. If the sole criteria to invasion was how threatening the country was, then Afghanistan would probably have been on the list after Iraq, NK, and Iran.
All these countries need regime change and regime change would benefit both the US and the people in these countries. However, we knew we could invade Iraq and be successful. And Iraq was arguably the most dangerous.
Iran was much harder to hit because we had no nearby bases, there is strong evidence the regime may change on its own (the students and middle class are not happy) and Iran seemed less likely to hit us than Iraq. Saddam Hussein tried to kill a former president, Iran, has never tried such a thing. There is an indication they would fear a US retaliation. Saddam Hussein clearly did not fear a US retaliation that made him more dangerous.
North Korea could not be invaded without losing Seoul. That is an unacceptible loss. An invasion of Iraq did not have such an obstacle.
So when you line then up, in my mind, on the list, Iraq was number one. Afghanistan was much more risky than Iraq, but then again the Taliban was probably not going to leave on its own because there was no growing middle class etc. So Afphanistan was also high up.
So Afghanistan was number two. I can see the argument that maybe Afghanistan should be number one because they had aloready pulled of a hit, but Iraq and Afghanistan were close.
Yes all four are bad and need a change. But just because we can't hit North Korea, and Iran may change on its own is not a justification for not taking out Iraq's regime if we can.
