Even if the Iraqi insurgents did not exist, there would be nowhere that the US could now realistically invade without a huge risk of losing, simply because the US military would still be stretched to the limit.
--not necessarily, keep in mind the situation would be a lot different for the US if they had succeeded in Iraq by now. it is true iran and syria both have militaries, unlike Iraq, which would make for some hesitancy on the part of the US foreign policy makers, who prefer an 'enemy' that is very very very weak, like saddam. but i refer back to the first week after the great victory last may, the hype about syrian harboring of weapons, wmds, saddam,...and the none too subtle threats to Iran... ----------------------------------- Cuba and Venezuela would also be difficult (to say the least).
--well, a few defectors talking about cabbage wmds used on little girl prisoners in Havana could get the left in this country on the side of invading Cuba perhaps...but no, i think you're right, it's unlikely to be extended to invasions of Cuba or Venezela -------------------------------------
Steve, I suppose the Iraqi Communist Party's support for privatisation (by an elected Iraqi govt) only further condemns them in your eyes? Regardless of why they they might think privatisation is a good idea at the moment?
--it'd depend surely on the extent to which they think some privatization was necessary or desirable. i'll tell ya one thing though, any possibility of the Iraqi gov't having much say about what is or is not privatized as long as American troops are in that country is pretttty minimal i'd say.
steve