2007-01-25 11:36:16 · 7 answers · asked by Brick 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The one problem with the comparison was Somalia was 'supposed' to be humanitarian assistance originally; whereas, Iraq was an occupation.
That has recently changed with new bombings of Al Quaida in Somalia; although, it is still different unless we would actually occupy Somalia.
2007-01-25 12:26:17 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Iraq, the USA invaded a stable country in an illegal offensive war of aggression and created an unstable haven for terrorists.
In Somalia, an unstable nation was invaded by Ethiopia which then prudently turned and around left when they realized only a crazy idiot would want to occupy a muslim nation that is diametrically opposed to its values and beliefs.
2007-01-25 19:59:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing, both actions are targeting terrorists and extremists. The only difference is we have occupation in Iraq. We don't intend to do that in Somalia.
2007-01-25 19:46:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
first, there is a real government in exile in Somalia...it may take decades to totally destroy their opposition...2nd, they are asking for aid.....Iraq, an invasion of a sovereign nation that however corrupt the leadership was, order was maintained in the region (Saddam hated Iran and wasn't involved with Al-Queda because he was threatened by them as well)...Iraq is "Nation Building", Somalia is supported by world opinion and is a sovereign nation
2007-01-25 19:45:36 · answer #4 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The difference in the amount of proven oil reserves????
2007-01-25 19:42:36 · answer #5 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
One is sanctioned by the UN, the other is not!
2007-01-25 19:53:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nothing.
2007-01-31 11:29:36 · answer #7 · answered by George K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋