RIP , photojournalist James Foley

[hal]

A full scale occupation of Iraq will not end the threat. If we control Iraq, they will go elsewhere. Then we'll have to go there, invade that country and hold it. When the baddies move on again, we'll have to go there and hold THAT country. Pretty much, we'll have to control the entire world and all of it's citizens before we'll be safe.

So far, we've invaded and have swept clean Iraq and Afghanistan and the moment we walked away, the baddies are back stronger than ever. Learning the lessons from Vietnam, the world knows how to beat the USA - retreat and regroup until they get tired then move back in when the US goes home.

And no, I don't have a working solution to offer...

[Black]

DP wrote:
So DP, you would support a full scare military occupation of Iraq? Even if it dragged on another 5-10 years? Even if your favorite "news" channels turned around and became harshly critical of the decision to do so?

Yes. This distortion of Islam is the most dangerous thing we face in the world today.
And you don't know what my favorite news channels are.

So what's the goal there? Kill them all? Put them in detention camps that president after president has to inherit?

[Gutenberg]

It is almost certain that the man who killed Foley is a British national, from London.

[DP]

So what's the goal there? Kill them all? Put them in detention camps that president after president has to inherit?

Hey, I'm open to suggestions! What do you think we should do about it?

[Black]

DP wrote:
So what's the goal there? Kill them all? Put them in detention camps that president after president has to inherit?

Hey, I'm open to suggestions! What do you think we should do about it?

Here's what we are doing about it:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-unlikely-dee...25807.html
I can live with it.

Even GHWB knew invading Iraq would land us in the inevitable position we are in now.
The following is from 1998:
Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

So the answer to the mess we mad by invading Iraq would be to invade Iraq?

[Gutenberg]

The US could occupy Iraq till the goats come home and it would do no good. It is almost certain that the man who killed Foley is a British national. From London. Not from Iraq.

[DP]

Sounds good-if it works. What will ISIL's response be to that? Just go somewhere else and do it again. Or, it might slow it down, but not put a stop to it.
And what about Al Qaeda, Hamas, and all the others dedicated to our destruction? When does that get stopped?
Would you like to see a Middle East controlled by radical Islamists?

[Black]

DP wrote:
Sounds good-if it works. What will ISIL's response be to that? Just go somewhere else and do it again. Or, it might slow it down, but not put a stop to it.
And what about Al Qaeda, Hamas, and all the others dedicated to our destruction? When does that get stopped?
Would you like to see a Middle East controlled by radical Islamists?

I'm not following. What's your point?

[Speedy]

Yes, we broke it, now we have to fix it. Maybe we can bring back all those weapons of mass destruction Iraq had to now use on ISIL.

[mrlynn]

ISIS, according to Oliver North, is stretched thin over a large territory. Their command-and-control base is in Syria, and they're vulnerable to a concerted attack from the air. Or they would be if we had President willing to take the initiative and wipe them out, as they so richly deserve.

We were winning the Long War against worldwide Islamo-fascism, before this administration came into power. It is scary to imagine how much more we will lose over the next two and a half years—maybe the entire Middle East, including Israel?

Yes, it's 'political'.

/Mr Lynn