iraq wasn't a threat to us. they were a sort of threat to Israel. they didn't have a viable navy, an antiquated air force, an understaffed and under funded standing army, and zero long-range capabilities....Aren't we kinda broke? Aren't our forces already committed on 2 fronts? Didn't people scream about the "Coalition" invasion of Iraq? Isn't this kinda similar, only Gaddafi is virtually ZERO threat to us, whereas Saddam had gassed the Kurds, had invaded another sovereign nation without provocation, had hindered UN inspectors for years? I could go on, but in a nutshell, that's why not.............IMO, of course.
All that "expensive equipment" is going to injure & kill a lot of people too.
there is nothing similar about the two except that it's in the middle east. . we invaded iraq because he was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. it also turned out to be false. they found cold-war era remnants of chemical weapons which were in such poor condition that weaponizing would've been virtually impossible. you can argue about sadam's brutality but when he was in charge the religious fanatics were kept in check. how many suicide bombings did you hear about under sadam???? would you dare go to a market in iraq now?????
we are helping the international community, under france's leadership, to establish a no-fly zone. no full-on invasion... the people of Lybia revolted against their leader in swarms, the protests took over more than half the country, and were only driven back by ruthless targeting by this madman. the people of lybia don't want gadaffi there. they're just keeping their mouths shut b/c if not fire would rain down.....
yeah, exactly the same scenario right????
