What do you think is the best way for the global community to deal with the Islamic State?

Demand that USA insist that their friends the Saudi's and Qatari's stop funding them!...for starters...

First, choke off their funds by hacking into their bank accounts. Second, choke off their arms supplies. They must be buying their weapons from someone. Third, governments should pressure YouTube, Twitter and Facebook to stop IS from using social media to post grisly images. Without money, weapons or PR outlets, all they can do is stand on street corners and shout slogans.

At least, I 'd like to see all the above attempted before military action.

Shoot every last one of them in the face.

@brainiac

Damn, you were faster than me. I agree! Sadly, NONE of that was done.

@stranger

What nonsense of the highest order? You really think that ISIS will just leave the West, US, Europe, Israel and many of the other Muslim countries. Ignore them and they will go away. ROFL liberal logic at its worst. The UN can go and milk a rubber duck. The UN can't even decide and agree what terrorism is. There is so much confusion and division. The UN is a complete useless body of whiny nations that can't decide and do anything. The hell with them. Let them do what they do best, stick to humanitarian help and handing out rice to the needy. That's pretty much the best the UN can and should do.

As above but also Vaporise them and turn the sand they stand on into glass.

I'm not sure but did they try, Sit and talk?

IS is not interested in sitting and talking. They have an agenda.

Ultimately, it's up to the Middle Eastern countries to figure this out. However, the world should start doing something. ISIS is more global than people realize. To say the world shouldn't act is completely naive, considering that there's approximately 15,000 foreign fighters from all over the world, some of which are from the US. So, yes, this is the world's problem too. On top of that, civilians from other nations are being beheaded or are currently being held hostage. Why shouldn't a nation defend it's people?

With that being said, freezing bank accounts is a great place to start. If you cut off the finances, you cut off the supplies. Start with the main money bank accounts, then go for the donations. After that, freeze anyone's account who is in support of ISIS (or any terror threat for that matter). This will cause some backlash from insurgencies, so be prepared to defend and react quickly. Target the leaders. Make them run. Make their money men run too. Deny propaganda from ever being displayed, period. Work with your allies and build an alliance (which is being done). You don't need to send an army, but it doesn't hurt to have one on standby. This is the only way to stop an insurgency.

Come to terms with the fact it is a religious group with a religious ideology. Then fight the ideology head-on, as the West did when it won the Cold War.

Other than that, drones, drones and more drones.

Russia invaded Afghanistan over 35 years ago and that place is still a mess because 1. it always will be and 2. we won't leave it alone.

Bingo.

Meddling by "the West" is what precipitated all this awfulness in the first place. More meddling won't fix it. The risk to "the west" from these fanatics is in no way diminished by bombing them - probably just inflames them to worse acts of barbarity (if we take their words on the execution films as the truth). Let them do their worst and the locals will eventually tire of this and take proper action. Kerry flying around and making patronising statements will not solve this.

Deportation of muslims within non-muslim countries to the muslim country of their choice, then all out war. No more free travel or immigration of muslims to non-muslim countries. Otherwise it is going to fester and grow. If there ARE peace-loving moderate muslims, let them moderate the behavior of those that are threatening world peace, but that is just not happening is it. Those moderates are very quiet of late, and their condemnation is unheard.

Ultimately it would be best if the other muslim nations stepped in and sorted these bloodthirsty wild dogs out but they do not have the will , resolve or desire to get involved.

Collectively they would have the money, arms and men but they lack everything else.

If someone does not step in the madness will spread.

It is gone beyond the US not invading, bush No1 and No 2 made sure of that when they initiated the other two invasions.

Education and science needs to be taught so people can see reality not some belief in religious book that is open to twisted interpretation by people who want to use it for evil and control.

This unchecked feral behaviour cannot be tolerated.

No, nonsense of the highest order is unilaterally invading sovereign nations that have not attacked you. I would have thought that America would have learned this lesson after their invasion of Iraq.

Hmmm, I saying beheading two Americans is an act of war. Saddam and his murderous sons and allowing the Jihadists to train on his soil was a direct threat to America. What's there to learn? You are amazing! You think we should just hide in a cave, do nothing and just hope these guys will leave us alone and then, even if they kill more Americans, hold back and do nothing, if they attack American interests and our allies, do nothing until you get a formal invite. Yeah, if you are a pacifist and you like taking it up the rear the way the Europeans have been, then I might agree with you and what is the result? The Far-right in Europe is growing as a direct response for the leadership in Europe and their unwillingness to confront that evil and now the Nationalists are taking more and more power and that is good??? Screw that. We don't need and shouldn't have to ask the permission of ANY country if it is ok for us to defend ourselves and if people don't like it, so *** what?! I don't care what the world thinks as equally as you do care that the US should think about the world. How absurd when we have to to take care of everyone else and even the people don't ask us, their governments always do.

I think that until and unless they attack, using that as an excuse to unilaterally invade sovereign nations that have not attacked them is not a valid excuse. We've already seen what a fallacy pre-invading can turn in to (again, Iraq). Now the US wants to get involved in a religious war.

That would have never happened if Obama would have maintained a SOFA and would have done the right thing and keep a residual force stationed in Iraq and trained the Iraqi army better instead of flat out leaving and allowing ISIS to grow and flourish. Now we are paying for it and if Obama doesn't get serious and make NO mistake, Obama is kidding himself and only prolonging the inevitable, there will be ground troops sooner or later, otherwise there is no way you can really eliminate the threat of ISIS.

They already are away. They have not attacked the US, nor Britain, nor any other western nation. They are Iraq and Syria's problem.

Good Lord, Stranger...they just beheaded 2 Americans, 1 Brit and there is another Brit that's next and they have about 30 more hostages and they will keep beheading and you think it's no big deal? That kind of Obama think process is exactly the reason why we are deep in the thick of this mess now. I am just happy that you are at least honest, but Obama style of governing will never be chosen to lead this country for a very, very long time. I think now people have finally learned their lesson about voting for someone that has ZERO experience in governing. It's a job, not a joke to hang out and party all the time.

Leave them to create their twisted, retrograde hell hole and let the locals sort it out. Whatever people say above, intervention is what caused this mess and it will not solve. Russia invaded Afghanistan over 35 years ago and that place is still a mess because 1. it always will be and 2. we won't leave it alone.

Expecting the Gulf Arabs to play ball when the US and others are providing a backstop is dumb. Only way they will really stop funding these lunatics and start taking concerted action against them is when their own corrupt regimes are threatened, which is not the case right now.

and stop sanctions and the like against Syria and Iran.

Saddam and the other Arab dictators are what used to keep these lunatics in check. Exactly the "local solution" that Kerry is now trying to build (and, agree that his "all bases covered" comment is hubris of the highest order). Then the US and allies came and toppled Saddam and conspired in the overthrow of others (though not, we note, their cronies in Egypt) and we end up with these lunatics. I agree we should just let them drive tanks around and shout Allahu Akabar and kill their fellow "Iraqis" and "Syrians" until locals and neighbouring states finally have enough and deal with them. In the meantime its not like they are going to invade Europe or the US. and the chance of them committing some atrocity (bomb or similar) in "our streets" doesn't diminish because we are bombing them - if anything it is greater.

Until we have forced integration, people will not understand that we are all basically the same. We want the same things; to raise our kids so they can have a little better life than we did, with hard work and to live without fear that anyone we know will be harmed. If that isn't the opportunity provided, then groups feel cheated and loose hope. That leads to violence as the only solution they can see. There needs to be opportunity for a better life for everyone in bad situations.

We have to mix the children of the groups who are fighting. Mandatory for decades so that the people learn these "others" are just like them, for the most part. The parents will be against it, so it has to be government mandated and sponsored. Distrust will slowly go away as the older, unmixed generations die off. In 30-40 yrs, the hatred will be mostly gone. If we allow separation to be a way of life, nothing will get better.

Of course, we should test this out with the Israelis and Palestinians first. Short 2-week programs where they mix teens from both sides have created friendships for over a decade since that first meeting. It worked wonders across America in the 1970s-1990s. Some of my best friends are not like me in skin or culture or religion. We still have farther to go and there will always be a minority of haters, but complete distrust between the different peoples is gone for the majority of the population. OTOH, I'm in the "white mans club" according to my black friends, so I can't see the lack of equality in the same ways they see it daily.

@enough_rope Maybe ISIS will be in Xinjiang next. Are you still going to consider them freedom fighters then?

hidingout:

" ((In this global economy, and global community, no one can succeed if they p*ss off everyone else.)) And this is the reason IS will never succeed. My answer to the poll question is, kill them all. "

But they have NOT pissed off everybody else! Fundamentally, ISIS repressent a huge Sunni Arab area in two Shiite controlled areas. That is why Obamas idea of motivating Sunnis to fight ISIS is a non-starter.

We really should get away from that wishful thinking that everyone has the same ethical standards as we.

I don't think the Global community should have to deal with them... I think normal, hard working, honest Muslims should stand up against them. After all... the honest hardworking Muslims of the world are having their name tarnished by these few crazies. If the rest of the world fights them... and many countries in the rest of the world are Christian in belief, then it becomes Christianity versus Islam... so it would be best that they deal with the problem. If they chose to not deal with the problem... then I believe then then chose to stay in their respective countries and not immigrate to other locations.

Wipe them off the face of the earth. They indoctrinate their kids to 'kill the infidels' - which in their interpretation is anyone that doesn't follow their faith. People of their own faith have fallen victim to their unrelenting violence.

They will stop at absolutely nothing.

The west needs to stand up for itself and stop being so 'soft'. More importantly, we need to see some actual action from the 'outraged' Muslim community. So far, I've seen very little - if nothing - in the way of action from any Muslim leader.

Demand that USA insist that their friends the Saudi's and Qatari's stop funding them!.

Some rich Gulf nation such as Qatar is backstabbing the western nations. Becoming terrorists needed to be extremely rich such as Osama Bin Laden.

If USA and allies force dethroned the evil government of Saudi and Qatar and support the Syrian government who is fighting the terrorists is the answer for Crusade II.

Richard I( The Lion Heart) had known the Turkey which was a Christian nation will become Islamic nation and domino effect will follow. He tried his best and failed. Richard homeland England and France and Belgium are gradually becoming like Turkey.

Christian women birth rate are so low as Japanese Women. Without the competitive birth rate, Christianity will be conquered by Islam.

Brainiac:

" First, choke off their funds by hacking into their bank accounts. Second, choke off their arms supplies. They must be buying their weapons from someone. "

Yeah, right. Except that someone is Obama, at least partially. The guy who is now requesting open-ended fund to supply that "vetted rebels" in Syria, aka ISIS. Anybody who believes that there is a firewall between "vetted rebels" like the FSA and ISIS is delusional.

The first step for any meaningful policy has to be to stop this absurdity.

Get China to deal with them.

If they have not killed these two American journalists, then what would have been the reaction of USA?They just did not do anyhting when those Yazdies were butchered and sent to mountains nor Americans did nothing when Christians were converted or Shias were butchered. Now just killing two American journalists has created some furore. Anyone with litlle geography and geo politics can see it is Turkey which created this monster and the Turks continue to give them Arms and allow them to sell oil through their ports. The real fighters with boots on ground is Iran but Americans will not talk to them about IS. The Arabs are itching to bomb Assad who is fighting the same ISIL. Is American hands are clean in this ISIL creation?

And there it is. If you really don't see the problem with doing whatever you want in the world, then you have no idea about how the world feels about bullies. This attitude will eventually lead to the downfall of your country.

While I'm partly sympathetic to your argument in that I think the USA has a tendency to stick its nose in where it doesn't belong, can I assume that you believe it is OK to sit back and watch religious fanatics murder completely innocent people indiscriminately for no reason whatsoever other than the fact that they belong to the wrong religion, or the wrong sect of the same religion? Aren't you one of the crowd always going on about the "civilian" casualties of US drone strikes? Where is your compassion for the civilian victims of IS?

Lets not forget that before any foreigners were murdered IS was murdering random people by shooting them from the windows of their vehicles and posting the videos on youtube. They were "arresting" the legitimate police officers of Iraq and Syria and executing them en masse. Posting those videos too.

You can argue that the USA has a problem with minding their own business, and that's a legit stance imo. But IS has gone well beyond anything we can afford to tolerate. If you leave them to set up their little sharia caliphate you are condemning millions of people to a life of utter and total misery. Are you really OK with that? I mean I am, because its none of my business, but I just assumed that you were way more liberal than me and wanted coca colas a for everyone.

In this global economy, and global community, no one can succeed if they p*ss off everyone else.

And this is the reason IS will never succeed. My answer to the poll question is, kill them all.

*captainjohann

If they have not killed these two American journalists, then what would have been the reaction of USA?

Very ignorant comment there. The U.S. has been saying that they were going to stop ISIS way before the journalists were killed.

@enough_rope Maybe ISIS will be in Xinjiang next. Are you still going to consider them freedom fighters then?

An excellent question. I expect you will get nothing but crickets in reply however.

Only if you are stupid enough to rise to the provocation.

I admit, these journalists took a chance going there, I went and it got too much for me, but some of these guys will risk their lives knowing the consequence, but that doesn't mean, we should allow Americans to be slaughtered like sheep. No, there should be condemnation and a swift response!

I think America should mind its own business unless/until America is attacked by these guys. That has not happened. If Americans don't want to be killed in Iraq, they shouldn't go to Iraq. That's like stepping into a cage full of wild dogs, then getting angry when one of those dogs bites you.

So what you are saying, do the Obama approach and allow the Jihadists to take over the region, the West and the rest of the World. Like the old saying goes, "you may not be looking for a fight, but a fight is looking for you."

The main thing you seem to be missing is that by stepping in and invading sovereign nations, America increases the likelihood of an attack on America. All invasion does is create bad will against America. Absolutely no good comes of it.

That is complete BS! 9/11, the USS Cole, the Kenyan embassy bombings, the FIRST World Trade Center bombing. Funny, we weren't doing anything, no wars at that time and the jihadists were still trying to kill us. Thanks, but that is all just a bunch of hoey!

You also seem to be missing the point that invading sovereign nations that have not attacked America, without an invitation from said nations, puts America in the wrong. Plain and simple.

Sorry, any attack on America, it's natural interest and allies is a direct attack and any action is justified.

There is never an excuse for a 'preemptive attack', because there is no such thing. A preemptive attack is simply the first attack in a conflict.

I totally beg to differ. From a military strategic POV and if you want to win any major conflict and the element of surprise. ISIS is doing exactly that. Shock and awe and surprising the enemy at lightning speed, this is why they are able to gain ground so quickly, it's kind of like an Islamic surge comparable to what Gen. Petraeus initiated when we were losing Iraq and that was the turning factor the surge. You want to win a mission, you do a preemptive and you hit the enemy hard, surgical and direct.

And there it is. If you really don't see the problem with doing whatever you want in the world, then you have no idea about how the world feels about bullies.

Once the world starts taking care of itself, then I'll listen, until they can take care of themselves without asking anything or needing anything from us and can take care of themselves, the US like of not, will always have a say.

This attitude will eventually lead to the downfall of your country.

That would be actually Obama that has really brought this country down.

In this global economy, and global community, no one can succeed if they p*ss off everyone else.

Like the old saying, when America sneezes, everyone else catches a cold.

It never would have happened if America had not invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked it in the first place. Obama did the right thing getting out of Iraq - America had no business being there in the first place.

And because Obama did the wrong thing, we now have an Islamic Caliphate the size of Belgium and foreigners signing up to radicalize their ideology and enforce Sharia. Had Obama maintained the SOFA and kept a sizable presence in Iraq, we wouldn't have a need to further go to war and to deal with this global threat.

People are so critical of China for unilaterally extending their ocean territory, but they have not invaded another nation like the US has. China has its problems, but in a comparison of which country has done worse things, it's hands down America.

To even lump China and America in the same sentence is laughable. When the US starts taking over and invading British Columbia and annexing all of South America, you may have a point. When America doesn't get involved as you are witnessing, who is filling that void, Russia, and China, how's that working out? ISIS and radical Islam and it's only going to get worse. 2 more years of this madness before we can set everything right once again.

Americans are killed in various countries all over the world every day. If that were justification for invading a sovereign nation, then America would have to invade every country in the world.

BS. People are killed everyday. You have more muslims and people in Asian countries and Africa that are 1000 times more likely to get killed, so take it with a grain of salt.

On the contrary, the US should be telling all its people to stay out of the region indefinitely, and if they choose to go there, its at their own risk. If you step into a cage with dogs, and they eat you, then you shouldn't have stepped in the cage.

You have no idea what you are talking about? Do you know how many Americans, including me travel on a daily basis? The only thing we get from the state dept. is a warning NOT to fly to N. Korea and Not to fly to Iraq or other hostile ME countries, that's about it. I travel 6 times a year, I have never felt any danger whatsoever that is a flat out and insulting lie to millions of Americans that travel across the world and don't encounter any problems, if it were like you say, then there would be constant warning to American travelers. Come on now. LOL.

USA to stand off unless the owning countries agree to annex those portions to USA.

Having IS sitting on top of the better part of the remaining oil reserves of the middle east creates terrifying stress and a sense of unbearable anxiety in the middle-eastern-oil dependent developed countries of the world. It also creates a dilemma : attempt another oil boycott and constantly suffer anxiety about who is breaking the boycott, or don't boycott and worry about funding the IS.

How about diverting the funds for fighting IS towards developing alternative energy sources to replace middle eastern oil? Among the many alternatives Thorium based reactors should be included. China is moving right ahead in alternative energy development including plans to have a production Thorium reactor online by 2024.

Hilarious Chuck, welcome to planet earth.

The world should: 1.) stop all immigration of fundamentalists to their countries, 2.) stop doing business with the Saudis and Qataris until they stop funding terrorism (that is the world, Chuck!), 3.) drone ISIS if you can, 4.) come back in 50 years and see if things have gotten better, otherwise, repeat #3.

America Gov is going around this in the wrong way. They are only training them, and will slowly arm the rebels in Syria. That will take time, and time mean's they adapt to it/ the strategy's and the fighting. What are they going to do when they hit the city's and there fighters are in every house? America can't kill 100k civilians and blow up all houses, so Air support is only to stop an advance. After that, its cleaver strategy/tactics, to draw them "out".

Personally American troops need to go in hard and fast, surround there main city strong hold, and kill them off. This plan now........ Is the wrong way around. It's going in hard "as" your arming the rebels, then take out the trash. Once the trash is taken out, then rebels move in, to stop the trash from building back up.

For a start American troops need to kill as many as they can, so on an assault on the city needs to be clever to draw them out. I would look for a route that gives the IS some hiding areas "but" nothing we can't just drop some bomb on to kill them.... Trees rocks and so on. Ether way I would just draw them out into a trap. I would make the guided bombs miss all their targets and have the troops pull back "slowly" as if the IS is beating them back "there for" they will send large numbers forward "thinking" there repelling an attack, but in fact..........It's a trap. So now we will see all guided bombs, stopping them from going back into the city area "houses" for cover, and will see a swarm of troops dropped from the choppers and so on, surround them and breaking them up, into small groups "out" in the open. This way choppers can swarm in also.

Now we can move into the city. Mass fighters have been killed in a trap on different sides "not just 1 side" and they have significant casualty/losses. Now the troops need troop need to use the same smoke a guy told Israel to use, years ago. It burns hot and stops all inferred from working :). You can move tanks in and troops "without" inferred weapons working. It was very successful, "but" if it gets on civilians, it can badly burn them. Troops will pre plan the attack "Knowing" what areas to use it, and what areas not to. You can even use that Burning smoke to cover your sides. If its to the sides you can focus on a forward attack, and know attack can come "directly" from the sides. It's like being able to stop being "flanked" from the side/sides.

For a pre plan invasion, it will be looking at all the roads and what roads the civilians drive on. There can't be IED pressure plat bombs on the roads, as they use them. Jamming devices for the rest, then enter "only" at night time, to see any enemies hiding with wired IED bombs. Things like stun grenade's as you clear out the houses, even sound weapons and heat weapons to help.

Well really The only thing i would change "maybe" would be using the Rebels to stage the first wave off the attack, and letting them pull back. This way the IS would probably take the bait more, as they have "over run" everyone to date in the same way. So U.S troops ready to swoop in, and Guided bombs and jet fighters ready to kill and stop them from getting back into the city. So 2 stop them from getting back into the city, they need to use that smoke that burns "white hot" as they can not walk into it, or they will burn hard / 2 death. Guided bombs and choppers target tanks and cars only "Unto" only IS men left.

So many people and the American public, think of the Iraq in as in "2006" disaster. They are forgetting that they won the battle and would of won the war...... If it was not for the Iraq gov didn't kicking them out, to cling to power. Its why its all happened also. The Iraq war was 100% won. In the end the Intel was running them out of the city and the countryside, so much so the raids were taking place deep out in the desert at the end of the Iraq war. Iraq Gov got told "once troops goes" so does Intel.... as we can see it was Iraq's gov biggest mistake, as Iraq troop attacks were becoming less and less, and U.S troop deaths were staying at 0 deaths a week "nothing at all". Despite what you here about the Afghan war, its going very well. Just going to take time to kill them off. Even a U.S Gen come out saying that war was going good a year ago. That's because of there id cards that stop a endless supply of men.

A nation should defend its people within its nation. Outside of its nation, it should rely on relationships with the governments of whichever nation said civilians are in. If nations are not willing to help protect those civilians, then a nation should warn its citizens to stay out of said nation.

Yes, it should, but in theoretically, but this is reality and in this Bizarro reality that is just not how the world works, especially unstable theocratic or dictatorial governments of Muslim countries. When a nation attacks another nation it has a right to respond, the problem is a vast majority are hostile to the West out of pure religious reasons, I'm talking about the fanatics and NO matter what you do, you will always be a target and as I said before, this is the opportunity to defeat ISIS if the president is serious and will take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of Americans, our allies and ISIS is not a group or a gang that can be managed, they need to all be killed as long as it takes. Obama was the one that pulled the troops out, let him clean up this mess.

To say the world shouldn't act is completely naive, considering that there's approximately 15,000 foreign fighters from all over the world, some of which are from the US. So, yes, this is the world's problem too.

Not if they are going to Iraq and/or Syria it's not. It's the problem of Iraq and Syria.

On top of that, civilians from other nations are being beheaded or are currently being held hostage. Why shouldn't a nation defend it's people?

A nation should defend its people within its nation. Outside of its nation, it should rely on relationships with the governments of whichever nation said civilians are in. If nations are not willing to help protect those civilians, then a nation should warn its citizens to stay out of said nation.

Wipe them off the face of the earth. They indoctrinate their kids to 'kill the infidels' - which in their interpretation is anyone that doesn't follow their faith.

And here you are, preaching essentially the same thing.

The only REAL way this kind of thing gets resolved is if the countries of the region take ownership of, and responsibility for, the existence and flourishing of extremism in their region. In fact, it's time the Middle Eastern States got serious about this and acted as a unified body.

America's presence doesn't work, and in fact only makes it worse. Americans were shocked in the aftermath of 9/11 - they asked; 'Why us? What did WE do?'

Well, the answer is that the US has long been meddling in, manipulating and militarily striking in this region. As sad and shocking as 9/11 was, it wasn't surprising.

I am disgusted that Australia will participate in this. Time for the Middle East to take responsibility for it's own grubby backyard.

I'm not sure but did they try, Sit and talk?

What nonsense of the highest order?

No, nonsense of the highest order is unilaterally invading sovereign nations that have not attacked you. I would have thought that America would have learned this lesson after their invasion of Iraq.

You really think that ISIS will just leave the West, US, Europe, Israel and many of the other Muslim countries.

I think that until and unless they attack, using that as an excuse to unilaterally invade sovereign nations that have not attacked them is not a valid excuse. We've already seen what a fallacy pre-invading can turn in to (again, Iraq). Now the US wants to get involved in a religious war.

Ignore them and they will go away.

They already are away. They have not attacked the US, nor Britain, nor any other western nation. They are Iraq and Syria's problem.

Hmmm, I saying beheading two Americans is an act of war.

Only if you are stupid enough to rise to the provocation.

Saddam and his murderous sons and allowing the Jihadists to train on his soil was a direct threat to America.

Try making up more things. The jihadists were not training on Iraqi soil. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq, Saddam wouldn't allow it. They only got a foothold in Iraq when America created the circumstances that allowed them in.

You think we should just hide in a cave, do nothing and just hope these guys will leave us alone and then, even if they kill more Americans, hold back and do nothing, if they attack American interests and our allies, do nothing until you get a formal invite.

I think America should mind its own business unless/until America is attacked by these guys. That has not happened. If Americans don't want to be killed in Iraq, they shouldn't go to Iraq. That's like stepping into a cage full of wild dogs, then getting angry when one of those dogs bites you.

The main thing you seem to be missing is that by stepping in and invading sovereign nations, America increases the likelihood of an attack on America. All invasion does is create bad will against America. Absolutely no good comes of it.

You also seem to be missing the point that invading sovereign nations that have not attacked America, without an invitation from said nations, puts America in the wrong. Plain and simple. There is never an excuse for a 'preemptive attack', because there is no such thing. A preemptive attack is simply the first attack in a conflict.

We don't need and shouldn't have to ask the permission of ANY country if it is ok for us to defend ourselves and if people don't like it, so *** what?!

And there it is. If you really don't see the problem with doing whatever you want in the world, then you have no idea about how the world feels about bullies. This attitude will eventually lead to the downfall of your country. In this global economy, and global community, no one can succeed if they p*ss off everyone else.

That would have never happened if Obama would have maintained a SOFA and would have done the right thing and keep a residual force stationed in Iraq and trained the Iraqi army better instead of flat out leaving and allowing ISIS to grow and flourish.

It never would have happened if America had not invaded a sovereign nation that had not attacked it in the first place. Obama did the right thing getting out of Iraq - America had no business being there in the first place. People are so critical of China for unilaterally extending their ocean territory, but they have not invaded another nation like the US has. China has its problems, but in a comparison of which country has done worse things, it's hands down America.

Good Lord, Stranger...they just beheaded 2 Americans, 1 Brit and there is another Brit

Americans are killed in various countries all over the world every day. If that were justification for invading a sovereign nation, then America would have to invade every country in the world.

On the contrary, the US should be telling all its people to stay out of the region indefinitely, and if they choose to go there, its at their own risk. If you step into a cage with dogs, and they eat you, then you shouldn't have stepped in the cage.

The terrorists are not some sort of simple fanatics, they are a desperate bunch of people who feel that they have no choice in defending their own soil. This all happened because the US invaded them and removed their governments. THEY ARE TRYING TO STOP US BOMBINGS AND INVASION. What is really needed is global cooperation among all countries, and they need to establish a proper government in the Middle East, which the US had foolishly removed.

Deportation of muslims within non-muslim countries to the muslim country of their choice, then all out war. No more free travel or immigration of muslims to non-muslim countries. Otherwise it is going to fester and grow. If there ARE peace-loving moderate muslims, let them moderate the behavior of those that are threatening world peace, but that is just not happening is it. Those moderates are very quiet of late, and their condemnation is unheard.

And how would you like it if your country was getting bombed by drone strikes, having your friends and families killed, and getting invaded? I'm sure that you would do the same, you can't be so "peace-loving" under such conditions.

The 'global community' should stay out of it altogether, until expressly requested by both Iraq and Syria (and any other countries they step into) to come and help. At which point it should be managed by the UN not any single country (yes, I mean America).