Why do people support the bombing of Libya but oppose the invasion of Iraq?

I don't know but I do agree with what you have to say, the UN Resolution was passed on the premise that the 'Coalition' would protect civilians, now after firing off over 200 Cruise missiles and many hundreds of air strikes the US Military Commander said that there had been no civilian deaths due to coalition bombing ..... does anyone really believe that?

Obama & Cameron altered the UN Resolution straight away to 'change of leadership', the US & UK have been trying to kill Gaddafi whilst aiding the insurgents.

Bottom line? ......... Oil, Oil, Oil!

Because some people aren't clever enough to separate the two. They believe the media hype over the fact that our armed forces are doing it, because it will benefit the Libyan people in the long run. I don't understand how anyone can agree that dropping a bomb on a city or town will help a country that is already going through turmoil. It beggars belief that anyone is actually condoning this war and it is obviously about oil and not much else. A lot of people could see Iraq for what it was, so why not see Libya for a similar set of circumstances, only this time the players that the hands have different faces.

Plus if this war were supposedly just, then why not interfere with Zimbabwe etc? Enough said!

Iraq was a total different scenario to that of Libya.

The only thing which remains the same is they were both controlled by a dictator and have oil.

We went into Iraq twice and should have only done so once.

This time there will be no boots on the ground or involvement with peace keeping once Gadaffi is gone.

The rebels will be the troops with help from the coalition providing the killer punch should they need any targets or Gaddafi's troops removing.

In about a week Tripoli will be under siege and Gadaffi will have 2 choices fight and die or scurry off to another despot country.

End of.

Every other Dictator who's people want him gone will then see the light.....our light.

Both are the same, US deciding to change the regime in another country and UK supporting their agenda. Both are oil rich countries with rulers supported by US and UK until they stopped doing what they were told. Iraq was a peaceful secular country with different races and religions. Libya is predominantly moslem. Saddam Hussein was a business partner of the Bush family, Muammar Gaddafi was a friend of Tony Blair. To support one invasion and not the other does not make sense. Both are about controlling american oil supply.

Our attack on Iraq was opposed by the UN but the action against Libya was at the request of the UN. The difference is between an illegal war and a legal war.

Iraqians did not uprise and did not instigate a revolution against their tyrant. Libyan civilians are rebelling against the government and are giving a clear indication of wanting to fight. I think the US government is arrogant and to take their self interest so far. They did not know for sure that they represented the interests of the Iraqi civilians in bringing war to their own country. But then again why would they care what Iraqians think. As far as the US is concerned every country's state of affairs is a reflection of their own interests, and they will act on it.

I don't remember Sadam opening fire and declaring war on his people in such an open and threatening way, like Gaddafi has done. It's ironic that my bf's uncle, who worked as a mercenary and a secret agent, was hired by the US to take out Gaddafi in the 70s, but they dropped that plan and he never found out why of course.

Because people are hypocrites when it was George W Bush bombing Iraq they complained and wanted impeachment but he had full permission from congress. But now since its Obama bombing Libya its all good those people are not going to go against their saver. Honesty I think both wars are a waist of time and money, and the new president looks a lot like the old one.

I am with you and don't see the reason for what we are doing. The excuse in Iraq was WMD and at least Congress bought into the invasion. Now we are in Libya on the word of one man without the approval of Congress.

There has to be hidden agendas in all of this. No other reason can be seen

The other poster brought up the fact that we have been at war with al-Qaida so here in Libya the rebels are supported by al-Qaida and we are furnishing them with weapons.

If our agenda is saving civilian lives then we would be compelled to go to Syria & Yemen at this time.

P

POLITICS; You are right, they are similar,but here is another thing, France wants to be involved because they have deeply vested economic aspects in Libya, they did not in Iraq,The then president of France Jaques Chirac quite simply did not want to anger the french public, this time around, France simply have to much oil at stake in Libya,( Double standard)- Now here in the US Democrats rally behind Obama saying they dont want civilians killed, Thats absurd given how ruthless Saddam was, where were those same democrats back then?

So its mainly a jumbled up affair of geopolitics,and croneys who want reelected,

Let's face it the west have been itching for even the flimsiest of excuses to get rid of Qadaffi and this uprising was a gift to them.

I wonder if there were an armed revolution in France,Britain or the U.S. would their governments deal with it any differently to Qadaffi? I'm not so sure they wouldn't. Students were killed in America in the past during protests after all.

What's more,Qadaffi does appear to have a considerable following unlike in Egypt where clearly the vast majority of all walks of life wanted rid of Mubarak.

You wont see them going in to Saudi Arabia or Bahrain.The whole thing rather stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy and skulduggery.