It would be absolute horror.

However, we are not horrified about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, a practice we said was over because we "negotiated" with Russia and Syria to give those weapons to Russia and have it stopped. We allowed those weapons to be used on children for years and then did this negotiations FiINALLY, a year or so after the red line drawing. By the way, Russia once again is "on our side" in talking with Iran ! But no horror for these people being gassed.

The administration INSISTS we have great allies in the Mideast. The administration INSISTS we do not need "boots on the ground to gather Intel. The administration INSISTS our drone program is second to none.

Could we not put to use all these ingredients claimed by the administration....to insure that nobody will want to be near a terrorist lest the die. A terrorist attack....with all our allies, and great Intel, we determine who did it, or even guess if we have to, and use drones to wipe the earth clean of those folks. Might make others think twice before another attack.

Would innocent people get killed...yep,but they are dying toda, but we don't care.

Sitting back and listening to people who "claim" to care about human life, when those children gassed in the streets of Syria are once again being gassed is a bit difficult.

If we think the situation with ISIL and Al Queda will have a "political" solution, we are dreaming. If we think verbalizing "red lines" with no follow through will work, we are foolish.

People are being beheaded, burnt alive and gassed because of religious beliefs.

We are presently negotiating with a country that is the single largest state contributor to terrorism in the area.

Does anyone want conflict...no, but even though the majority of men, women and children being massacred daily are not US citizens, should we not care ?

No matter the topic, you post this same old tiresome response. You sound like a broken record.

I see your point. Use unmanned drones to do bombing strikes and not American soldiers doing the fighting. Makes good sense.

You do not support having American soldiers doing the brunt of fighting, if I read you correctly.

Should we care? Should we risk American lives?

Who remembers Vietnam? It was a war, like Iraq, that the US had no business in whatsoever. Yet, America lost over 58,000 soldiers in a war that was a civil war.

Richard Nixon ended that war by withdrawing all Americans and now the US and Vietnam are trading partners. Who knew that would occur?

I'm confused. Are say saying that we should withdraw our troops and become trading partners with ISIS/ISIL?

Could you please clarify your meaning ?

Vietnam was us getting involved in a civil war. What is happening in the ME has nothing to do with any one country. That is on the assumption that you were speaking of that.

If you were speaking of Iran, I sure hope it is crystal clear what the differences are, and the lack of localization and the impact of nuclear.

Would you have thought back in 1968 that the USA and Vietnam would become future trading partners?

Was it necessary for 58,000 Americans to die in Vietnam? It was a civil war. The encroachment of Communism was not a danger to us.

Apples and Oranges. I don't remember the North Vietnamese declaring war on the Christian world and training "soldiers" to travel to the U.S., Europe and the rest of the world to kill non-believers. I guess that I must have missed that part.

I think Winston Churchill's answer still rings true to this day, and applies to this very topic ...(paraphrasing) ..."You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else."

The right thing to do is a) accurately describe the enemy as Radical Islam b) a leader / President (currently not applicable) explains to the people what's at stake, c) mobilize for Desert Storm II and 4) change the Rules of Engagement to approximate what we did in WWII when faced with a fascist enemy. We need to destroy ISIS totally, and that means use of tactical nukes if need be to destroy their cities. We also need to make sure Iran does not end up as the hegemon in the Middle East ... and DSII would help with that as well.

Radical Islam uses terror to make us afraid (ie the earlier post about what ISIS would do to a US captive). Historically, we have to make them more afraid while simultaneously exterminating them as we did the Nazis and Imperial Japanese.

The alternative to victory is to slowly watch the spread of Muhammad's writ and see your grandkids terrorized, and eventually in burhkas and using prayer rugs. Think about it ...

Oh, by the way, bring back the draft. Everyone needs to be in this.

Yes, that's the part the original poster either forgot and just didn't seem to even realize. The Communists, when all is said and done, are secular and want to enjoy life vs give it up for Allah or whatever.

Time's up. Not surprised.

If Obama didn't pull out the residual force, the ISIS take over of Ramadi would not have happened. What is happening now was predicted.

Perhaps an agenda being accomplished?

Yes, no doubt.

The only thing that still puzzles me is this question ... is Obama a Sunni sympathizer or Shia sympathizer? Kenyans are Sunni, as are Indonesians so logic would imply Obama favors the Sunni. Yet, he is allowing the Shia (ie Iran) to develop a nuke. Go figure ... but best covered in another thread.

ps for those interested the gist of the Sunni Shia dispute (over which many have died) is Shia Muslims believe that the only people who should lead Islam at the head are to be descendants of Muhammed, as in his kindred Ali, while Sunni believe anyone can be the leader.

...and why haven't Donald Trump's investigators returned from Hawaii! :clap2: