Look here is the point I am trying to make: I think it's terrific that we are helping them, but I don't see anything that WE (the US) are getting out of this deal that is worth the life of one brave American soldier. I don't like putting Americans in harm's way when we are not there for oil, or conquest. Nations cannot survive by sending the best, brightest and bravest to die in altruistic causes. It is folly to think otherwise.
There is a quick way to end this thing, one that would both send a strong and irrefutable message, and one that would save American lives. It appears, however, that we are serious enough to send Americans to die, but not serious enough to get it over with quickly.
We are also setting ourselves up for a massive investment, in terms of money, to rebuild Iraq (when we reach that point). And for a country that is running massively in the red, it is bad policy.
I disagree. We did it Europe, Japan and later, Korea, with excellent results.
You can't just bomb every major Islamic city in the world into smithereens, except as a last resort. We're just not at that point now, and hopefully won't ever be. The President's current strategy is working, or so it would seem. Besides, there is no real center of power in the Islamic world; it is dispersed.
They can pay for it themselves with their oil reserves.
We can end all pickpocketing and rapes and bank robberies and murders in New York City by nuking the city, too... (err, I mean "getting it over with quickly," to use your latest euphemism for the mass murder of innocents.)