Why would "al-Qaeda linked" groups be considered more dangerous than the mass-murdering cartels? Mexico is almost a failed state and we haven't invaded.
If US politicians were publicly stating willingness to intervene militarily in Mexico to protect a purely symbolic target, as appears to be the case here (link [5] above) I'd expect that behind closed doors leaders would be discussing what would be necessary to win international support, and sceptics would be expressing similar cynicism about whether the talking tough was really more about domestic politics.
Mexican government is fully cooperating with US and not acting like an enemy towards US, eh?
Depends on who you ask.
>120,000 (actually 658,000 if proportioned it to Mexican population) people have not died in Mexico in the last 3 years
No, more like 100,000 in eight. What's your threshold?
>3 million (12 million) people have not displaced as refugee in bordering countries either.
http://usopenborders.com/2012/04/160000-mexicans-displaced-i...
edit: I'm not using Mexican figures to say that fabricating evidence in order to invade is wrong - it just is. I'm saying that using the US as a justification is illegitimate. The US has a record of invading countries in order to enrich itself. To say that Turkey is invading for the same reasons that the US invades is to say that Turkey is going to lie to its own people and the world in order to make a resource grab. That's awful, and a lot of people think that Blair and Bush should be in prison for it.