I apologize for the poor cut and paste. Kept being interrupted, but I think you get the point of what is being said, and of course the crony crew won't like this, but doubt if there will be any real discussion. Just some nude remarks.

BUT this conversation is what makes history...a different look at the same thing, which is what this forum was created for. Problem is historical and fact based conversation requires adults on both sides. THAT is lacking which all can measure by the childish remarks that surely will follow.

As I recall HW Bush had the wisdom to not continue the war into Iraq because of the civil war which would result. W was advised that continuing the war into Iraq was a good idea. I'm thinking that from Global Strategy standpoint both Republican and Democratic Presidents are not without fault in this Middle East nightmare. Russia had spent time in Afghanistan and they discovered it was a quagmire. They left with our help from the CIA aiding people like Bin Laden. Read you history books.
Ask yourself how does China do business with most countries in the Middle East without problems? Maybe we should examine their Global Strategy!

Dear Guest: My initial post explaining Obama's dismissal lack of performance that makes choosing the next president exhibiting strong foreign policy had defense minded strategies with examples of the things that we must be doing to contain the world fires believe it o not are of my choosing.

Your "only Fox News publishes....." is wrong on at least two counts

but I digress

The problem we are all facing is that political actors are inundating issues with hindsight bias i.e. "If you knew now would you go back to .... This a a futile and unproductive effort. People make decisions based on the information they have at hand . Does it do any good to beat yourself or a decide for doing what the normally prudent man would do? We need forward looking discussion . What do we do now?

Personal Best Regards:

The fact that it was strictly a United Nations effort at the time, and anything beyond what was done would violate the UN mandate...THAT was the reason.

Isn't comparing the current day knowledge to date, applied to a decision made years ago flawed and innaccurate.

The only valid comparison is to have only the information available at the time, in the environment at the time.

The dumbest question of recent days was last week when candidates were being asked ...knowing what we know today would you have gone to war in Iraq?

How is that pertinent to the facts contributing to the decision made then? Adds no value to an analysis of a candidate of today.

Each time the subject is brought up it is presented as if W acted all on his own (like a certain other POTUS!). He had congressional approval.....remember that odd circumstance which is currently not used or abused.

As pointed out earlier, despite the poster reshaping history to fit his post, President HW Bush stopped short of Iraq because he was required by mandate to so do. That war was a UN operation, and he was not allowed to advance any further, so at least keep history accurate.

You are absolutely correct in blaming both parties for sure, and as long as we continue to after these years try to affix blame we are doomed to tread water and make the divide in this country wider.

China is a completely different story, although perhaps the accurate history of the region may help, but China has never been a target of the ME. First they are not an ally, except for trade, of Israel. Second, their culture is not a threat to any mideast countries. They have recently showed a bit of aggresiviness though.

We have a country, Iran who has threatened our country, our way of life and our ally, Israel and continue to do so. Keep in mind that while Sadam still ruled the roost the dialogue was the same from him and all in that area and that was resentment of our way of life, and threatening to us.

Nothing good will come until we stop asking everybody on both sides if they would do Iraq any different. It is done. That debate can be done by history professors and I include the Scarborough theory where he makes the case that Hillary Clinton was wrong twice. As you say, both parties have erred over many many years and it seems that all that should be important to us now is our future and the future of our children and grand children.

We need to look at our threats and deal with them. You can learn from history, but you cannot also get mired in it and just tread water. BOTH parties need to wake up and address what is in front of us.

I DO understand what President Obama was trying....ie., negotiate and discuss and keep it peaceful. I honestly do understand but obviously it is not working

No one is going to say how the Republican candidates feel about putting American troops into the ISIS controlled areas?

Ridiculous blather is all the the tripe posted by the Obama and Clinton haters. Get a spine and tell us what your candidates would do.

One of the troll cronies group, with what appears to be severe reading and comprehension deficit.

...and one of The Gang of Six (now at a lonely two person gang) responds with more blather without answering a question. Sounds like the diversion of just attacking when you have nothing to say. No one is interested in the blatherings of an old, grumpy man. Go away!

Great, have no interest....great with me and while you are at it, stop posting along with your cronie trolls. You obviously do not read anything anyway, and simply come on here with the trolling.

Do everyone a favor and take that lack of interest and act on it !!

Thank you and best to you and the rest of the trolls.

You want to know how Republican candidates feel about ISIS now, a year and a half away from any elections, months before any debates, and while the President is supposed to be reviewing and doing new planning ? Great....makes sense to me that what a Republican candidate who is now trying to win a nomination would matter. Maybe learn to read or watch the news like us feeble old men. And any of the old men on here that I know are anything but grumpy. They are basically, concerned, hopeful, interested and engaged. They also have little or no tolerance for trolls as with any message board.

If any criticism of existing policy upsets or concerns you, then I suggest you do what most adults do on here and comment to defend it. Not much of that happens on here, just the teenage talk.

Listen, you don't like it then PLEASE stay out of here. Us old men and women will just fine without your little snide comments. Most enjoy discussing what is happening instead of acting like a teen.

WOW. It is amazing how some never change, never listen, and continue with the same out tired crap !

Maybe so many republicans are running because they realize how much danger this country is currently in and how desperate America is for leadership

Let all of us concerned citizens would like to know what they would do to alleviate the danger.

Wow what an opening!
Get Obama and the democrats the hell out of the WH!!!

Hard to summarize what you are looking for but it has all been in the news lately.

Most want a strategy as they feel there is none. A number are talking about the number of sorties we fly but cannot bomb anything because of lack of guidance from the ground. Many are concerned about our relationship with Iran and how it is influencing the fight on ISIS.

ALMOST all think we are arming the wrong tribes, and that included many many Democrats, and that we are doing that to facilitate what we are doing with Iran.

A few think we need troops on the ground, not so much for combat to aid our pilots and accelerate the assistance to Iraq.

A few also think we need to get more involved in Syria.

In general it is a typical fight to try and get in the game to have a chance at the nomination so as politics go, many will say things to get press....but in general I think they share the concern of the american public and just wish there was a real policy that might work.

If the reason for the continuing asking of this question is that some feel that there is nothing but criticism of the President with no offer of an alternative, then allow me to comment.

First if aimed at the posters on here, that is out of line. Many posters have offered their input on the situation.

If aimed at the politicians, allow me to remind you that the President has not publicly stated ANY policy, and during the AUMF debate, neither Secy Kerry or anyone from the WH could quite verbalize the plan. To the point during that debate, that even Democrats were confused. The Democrat felt that the President's AUMF proposal was too wide and covered too much and the Republican wanted to give him more leeway in fighting them.

Of course, since we hear nothing from the WH and actually the press secy is getting tired of answering questions, or better said NOT answering questions, he is frustrated because what he says is normally contradicted in the hearings by the military trying to fight the war.

The WH says the strategy is to train and assist troops and he last included Syria which is a country that we ignored initially while they were gassing. This surprised me but you don't care about that. But the strategy as laid out in the press briefings are not matching up well with the military when they testify before the Armed Services Committee.

Most of the candidates, I think favor more troops on the ground...not a number probably exceeding 10,000 or so simply to make our air campaign work, AND IMPORTANT we keep hearing about the coalition. Iran says they are the only ones fighting ISIS...really did "Fazli added that it was a mistake to have U.S.-led foreign forces counter ISIS militants. Iran's Press TV reported that, according to the interior minister, the U.S.-led coalition had failed in its attempts to stop ISIS. Fazli said that the Iraqi forces had managed to be successful only in the regions where popular Iraqi forces supported them. The most important quote for me and is RELATIVE TO YOUR QUESTION.

"Fazli is not the only one whom U.S.-led foreign forces have failed to impress. Mowaffak al-Rubaie said that 8 out of 10 U.S. fighter jets had failed to engage terrorist positions. Iraq’s former national security adviser said that U.S.-led airstrikes had been mostly ineffective against ISIS.

Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani said that Iran was the only country committed to counter ISIS. Reuters reported that the commander of the Quds Force said Iran should help countries get rid of ISIS. "Today, in the fight against this dangerous phenomenon, nobody is present except Iran," he said.

Iran Claims To Be Only Country Fighting ISIS; Slams US Coalition As Ineffective

This quote tells you that the criticism coming from the candidates about our lack of good use of the air seems to be right on the mark.

I know that you cronies are not going to read responses to your questions..you never do, just make short snarky uninformed comments, but......I think to put to rest a lot of what is happening right now, the President should come on television and speak to the nation, not special interest group, but the entire nation and at least defend what he thinks he is doing.

He is not leading at all....he is not communicating at all. If he did that, at least any criticism could be more specific and easier to handle. Right now nobody seems to know what is happening.