[fineman]

An unjust attack on whose way of life? The girls being sold into slavery? The boys forced to fight or die? Those simply murdered?

I'm pretty sure the other 99.9% are hostages, and not half as committed to the bullshit as you think, except in stockholm-syndrome ways. Soon after they weren't being killed for not being fervent, they'd be as non-religious as we are.

[webXL]

You think our occupation would prevent those things? I supported the Iraq invasion initially, and had some hope for the surge, but these wars are literally controlled by the news media, because every time a bomb goes off in the wrong place or a soldier shoots a kid for whatever reason, we get more tentative, and our troops lose support for their mission, then a new president comes a long to capitalize. I was wrong. 9/11 jaded and naive about that part of the world. Just cut our losses. Our government has bigger, more understandable, fish to fry.

[fineman]

Sorry, but "just cut our losses" isn't acceptable to me when people are being murdered. This is the Nazi murder of Jews/etc of our time and it's everyone's obligation to handle it better.

Bush caused most of this current ISIS problem by lying about WMDs. At that point, we're the bad guys invading on a lie. It made us afraid of and hostile towards the Iraqis which caused the Abu Ghraib treatment, etc. He didn't make the terrorists but he provided them with their recruiting propaganda, made an ideal nest, and let them crawl in. It sucks, but we've got an uphill slog because we elected someone who was fine with murdering people on a lie.

[webXL]

> it's everyone's obligation to handle it better.

No, it's not. I have no expertise in ME affairs, do you? Who is the expert? What country has successfully demonstrated they can "handle it better"?

> Bush ... lie.

Yeah, and people died. I get it. But the next guy was elected partially because he wanted to withdraw from Iraq, and we did. Power vacuum. So we go back in and then what happens when we elect someone who wants to withdraw?