Fair enough. I do want to point out that SLL's main point is that we should be passive and let the factions duke it out. My point is that in no way can we really be passive here. We either need to pack our bags and go, or re-engage. There is no sitting on the sidelines for us, because we're basically at the 50 yard line as two sides converge on each other, and one side is shooting at the other side PLUS us.

Disagree - people are attempting to use logic to navigate through a battlefield that has no logic to it. It is pure emotion, logic and rationality don't hold any sway with them.

At root it is about belief, and people cling to what the believe emotionally to be true in defiance of facts all the time.

It should be the host country's responsibility to ensure the safety of a foreign embassy. If they can't or won't, we've got no business having one there.

That was back when we embraced two concepts that we no longer use:

1. Total War

2. In it to win it

As a country we no longer have the mass will to do either of those. Not doing number 1 increases the time required to the point where we give up and leave.

I'd say we've got some humiliation at this point, yes. We could just be getting started. It comes down to whether you want to defend our embassy when ISIS marches into the green zone. What's your take?

Don't you think that we've already had our humiliation? Let's learn from history and stay the hell out of other's internal problems and not make excuses to attempt imposing our own ideals on other people.

By the way, I also think we let Russia take the brunt of using up Germany's war machine before we entered Europe. I think that was an excellent read of Hitler's idiocy.

if anyone's abdicated a responsibility here, it's been Europe.

Why should we feel an obligation or even a right to make gainful contributions to the stability of the world by using force and coercion against the rest of the world? We may owe that to ourselves if you stretch the definition of individual to the group of individuals that make up a nation.

We know the answer to when they will stop killing each other - never, so long as any of them survive.

If you were to stop random people and ask what the specific reasons they are fighting are, it would be reminiscent of a Jay Leno "Walkabout". The killing has been going on so long now, the reasons for the fighting have escaped them, now its vengeance and vendetta rather than fighting for an actual goal.

Yes, we've learned what can murder somewhere between 100 million and 250 million human beings. On the other hand, it might be considered suicide for those that consented to live under such systems.

I think it boils down to another level of problem; that being some sense of moral superiority and group altruism. Both highly destructive to the self.

The ability to deal with your own property and destiny as you decide and voluntarily associate with whomever, whenever you decide that helps your interests to do so.

We can deal with them then. It won't cost us any more and probably less. We defeated Germany, Italy, and the Japanese in less than 5 years.

As far as I can tell, the fights between the Sunni and Shi'a is kind of like a fight between Baptist and Methodist. But yes, why should we have anything to do with either one. It's their business. Let them both destroy themselves or fail. We gain nothing other than some sense of moral superiority for those of us that think that's important.

When you say "let your two enemies duke it out", you seem to be citing a WWII example where Russia and Germany are our enemies. Of course, Russia was in name an ally. You seem to be painting a picture where we delayed our entry into Europe because we were waiting for Russia to absorb more losses. Conspiratorial idea - I like it. Any proof?

If there was some Shia/Sunni conflict going down in Iran or Pakistan or what-have-you, I'd get your point about the insanity of engaging in the conflict. I agree with your logic: no matter whether the Shia or the Sunni win, we win because they weaken themselves. Also, while they're distracted fighting each other, it's harder for them to make trouble for us. It's pretty much the 1980s policy of letting Iran and Iraq war with (almost) no involvement.

However, we're talking about Iraq here. We can't pretend like we're not involved there already. We've been there for a decade and this fiasco is happening as we're pulling troops out. ISIS is judging that we're too weak to repel them at this stage. Are they right? Probably.
Would ISIS be in its own power struggle against the other Islamic factions should they gain a foothold in Iraq? No doubt.
Does that mean we should just let them take over? You know what a takeover means? We've got an embassy there. An ISIS takeover means mass beheadings in the green zone...what happened in Libya times ten. There are two ways to avoid that outcome. Way #1: lower the US flag and vacate. Declare that the last decade was folly, and allow the rise of a new strongman. Way #2: engage the enemy and acknowledge that you may as well make Iraq the 51st state because we're never leaving. I don't think we've got a workable middle ground on this. We're either in for some humiliation or some territorial expansion. If we try to achieve something in the middle, we're just going to have a lot more death with nothing to show for it.

The US has had two problems that have resulted in Korea, Vietnam, etc. One is that we did not go in to win and we didn't even define what winning would be. If our objective is not total victory, then we should follow the approach of Madison with the Barbary Pirates. If our objective is total victory, then we should demand and institute a government based on natural rights.

The second problem we have had is that we don't believe in our own values, ie., the Constitution. This means that we have failed to win the battle of ideas, which is the only way to win a war in the long run. The only other alternative is complete annihilation.

Strict neutrality did not save Norway, Finland or others. There was no strategic reason for attacking Switzerland.

On a government level I am in favor of bank secrecy. The government must prove a person committed a crime and that crime directly resulted in the money that is in that account in order to be able to learn anything about peoples' bank accounts.

On an ethical level, no banker should accept money from a Stalin, Mao, etc.