[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"By Obama's own words" is not a convincing reason to base any assumptions on.

I was citing the most recent source I had seen. He didn't make it up...

And yet you must keep falling back on Obama's and his administration's talking points. The "constraints," in the decision, foremost, should have considered the security of the United States. It is that security, I presume, which constrains us to repel ISIS. That would have been easier with a security force in place rather than having to start all over again.

Originally Posted by spence

I'm not sure having troops there would have been a magic fix anyway. ISIS would still have likely crossed the border and dragged us right back into a large scale confrontation even faster. We'd quite likely be in it mostly alone versus the global action that's forming.

Except in movies, there is no magic fix in war. The fix is victory. The annihilation of the enemy. Finishing and securing the victories that had been accomplished would have prevented us going back to a "large scale confrontation" and allowed us to continue the war against jihadism on a stronger footing. Peculiar as it may seem, rather than dissuading others from joining you, being victorious and powerful actually attracts others to partner with you.

That's a lot of wishful thinking and gross over-simplification. Define "finish". Define "victory". Define the "war against jihadism" in clear and absolute terms.

The monsters I referred to (and assumed you were also referring to) were the "militant" Islamists (the true believers or "good Muslims" who followed the actual commands of Mohammed and his scriptures, of the Koran and the hadiths). They have been present since the beginning of Islam, and rulers who wished to include a wider range of citizens had to depress that original edict to do jihad of the sword to those who do not convert.

I've never read that the Koran advocates killing those who don't convert. If that's some bastardization by the militant Islamists perhaps they're not being good Muslims after all. Like the Bible, anything can be spun out of context to fit an agenda. Now if you excuse me I need to go stone my son.

You're mixing things up here. When Islamic rule was "enlightened," it was at the expense of orthodox Islam. Again, the rulers had to oppose that orthodoxy. To suppress it. That has always been so when "wise" rulers or tyrants needed or wanted to include a broader scope of culture, whether social, economic, or religious in their society. The "great advances" under Islamic rule to which you refer were in conjunction and association with nascent Western ideas. And the Western counterparts to whom you refer who were sacking and fending were not a part of the new and expanding Western philosophies.That is a "talking point" of anti-western commentators--apologists for some new world order which requires the hegemony of progressive utopianism. If the "conquests" were Western in philosophical terms, the middle East would have been transformed and the present day conflicts would not exist. The "conquests" had various motivations whose primary interests were not to westernize, but to exploit. Exploitation, war, conquest, and such things, predate westernism and will continue, possibly, to outdate it, as primordial human "instincts" of sorts.

That's a gem. Had the savages just done what we said everything would be hunky dory. Because non-Muslim or Western philosophies haven't ever had disagreements either right?

And, certainly, some of those "conquests" and "geopolitics" were in response to Middle Eastern and Islamic conquests and geopolitics. The crusades were a response to Islamic conquests. Much of the wars with Islamic countries during the past 7 centuries or more have been in response to Islamic "conquests" and invasions of Europe.

Many of the Crusades were just as much about Christian conquest than anything else. Great book:

http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Crusa...g+the+crusades

It depends on the "lens" through which you look. And which lens you wish to drop. The enlightened Muslims are not the original Muslims. The current "radical" Islamists actually are the original Muslims. And they will, as did the original ones, conquer you by war, deception, or whatever means necessary to instill some original notion of a "caliphate."

And they will not negotiate or compromise. Destroy and defeat them or let them have their way. If we withdraw militarily from the Middle East, they will have their way. If that is what we wish, or if we don't care, then at least arm our military to the teeth and see to it that our homeland is secure.

Again, that's just not reality. The global economies are interwoven and state actors play all sides. There is time for outright violence but the real solution is a much longer proposition.

Other interesting books I've read on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Muslim-Ba...lim+bad+muslim

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Islam-...eywords=irshad

The last one is unique. First off to read about Islam from a Canadian lesbian, but it also has a very good description of what jihad really means.