> Speaking of ground troops, I have a question for our resident warriors,
> Field Marshal Burford and Brigadier General Newman: if humanitarian
> concerns were really at the forefront, wouldn't the "right" thing to do be
> to deploy a large contingent of soldiers rather than bomb empty police HQ,
> oil refineries, bridges, and refugee convoys? Don't you find something
> deeply cowardly and hypocritical about this whole approach, in which
> hundreds of immediate and thousands of long-term civilian deaths
> are deemed acceptable in order to spare American lives?
There is a logic to it, albeit a flawed one. An announcement of an invasion would be immediately rejected politically and the whole enterprise would shut down. Secondly, it takes time to put together the requisite forces. A rationale for bombing is that you might as well do something until you convince the public that more is needed, or while assembling ground troops, since you will have to bomb eventually in any event.
The principal sin of the Administration is putting its own political interests ahead of what would be needed to actually protect Muslims, and promoting the bombing campaign as an acceptable substitute. As you say, this is cowardly and hypocritical. From this standpoint, however, you place yourself in the pro-rescue by almost any means necessary (short of nukes or Dresden tactics) camp, not the automatic anti-imperialists. Of course, your support is welcome.
Pvt. S Camp Swampy