Why is 18 dead in Somalia worse than 204 dead in Iraq?

[wuushew]

Supposedly the humanitarian nature of the operation in Somalia is at first glance just as noble as the officially stated goals of bringing "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. Is this publicly held view of acceptableness of combat deaths the result of whitehouse spin, racism or some other unknown factor.

Before you bash me on any Somolia related information a quick google search told me that US was responsible for much of the turmoil in that country and the subsequent intervention in some cases made the agricultural situation worse.

[wndycty]

1. Because. . .

Bill Clinton was president.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. It's not.

Also, be sure to hang Somalia around GHWBush's neck, where it belongs.

"Blackhawk Down" was a conservative fantasy. Clinton left Bush's people in charge of Somalia, which was started at Christmastime just before Clinton was sworn in. Colin Powell was essentially left in charge, and between him and Les Aspin, they made some bad decisions. Clinton didn't order in more armor to Somalia because he was preparing to get those troops out, and after the ambush he was the only one with the political cohones to get those troops out before more of them got slaughtered.

He was roundly criticized for that, of course. But the intervention in Somalia was not even a humanitarian mission as it was an attempt to take out Aidid - who was a thorn in the side of . . . BIG OIL, of course. What a total re-write of history has been done on Somalia.

[leftofthedial]

3. because Clinton was President then

and the sheeple are too ignorant to keep track of the fact that George the First sent the troops there.

Plus, we didn't wina glorious victory, complete with "Mission Accomplished" signs, in Somalia.

Plus, 18 deaths for a humanitarian mission is a real tragedy, while 204 deaths for oil is just a cost of doing business.

[Kamika]

4. no patriotism behind it

Clinton forgot to make up a big patriotic reason to why we should go to Somalia