Gordon
PS: Do you, Kevin, Stuwee and others really believe this country has the stomach, support of the US people and can commit to another war involving US ground troupes on a large scale overseas? I and the majority of the US population (I think) do not. If you agree with me on this, what specific actions would you and others propose that we are not currently pursuing?
That's a hard call to make Gordon. Like a hornets nest, I think they would have been much easier to deal with when they first gave an indication of being a problem before waiting until there ranks and territory swelled, but the past is the past and we must deal with what we have now. You are probably right, a poll of Americans taken today would probably indicate that a majority would not support a large boots on the ground invasion. But I know past polls indicated that the majority of Americans did support a larger effort, than was being done, to defeat ISIS. But people are fickle. Take a poll shortly after the news shows images of people being burned or drowned in cages, and you'll see different numbers than you will when ISIS has been out of the news headlines for awhile. Ask basically the same question, but word it differently, you'll get different results. It's why I don't pay much attention to opinion polls. What would American say if we were to ask, "Do you favor the US doing more to take out ISIS?" I would hope our leaders would do what they know is right to protect Americans and friends despite poll numbers.
I try not to judge our leaders call for military action. Someone, perhaps yourself, mentioned earlier that we do not have all the facts that the president or the military does. That is true. Of course, it didn't prevent people from harshly coming down on Bush, and I have been one of them to some extent. I wouldn't even question as hard our involvement in Libya, but my gosh, if people are going to attack Bush for Iraq, then how can you not find fault for Obama in Libya? Perhaps even more so, given that we had hindsight as to what happens when you remove a leader without a sound backup plan.
The problem with ISIS compared more so to other terrorists groups, is there ability to attract foreign fighters, which in turn get training and sometimes take those skills back home. So it's not as easy to say just let them be, we are here and they are there. Also, I do feel for the people that they terrorize in those countries, they are absolutely barbaric, and I bet it's much worse than we know. It's really sad, so I think I would do more than we currently are doing. My best answer as to what 'I' would do is this. Not tomorrow, but today, I would meet with the best of our military leaders and foreign policy advisors and ask what it would take not to degrade or contain them, but to wipe them out. I would hope their answer would be short of large scale war, but I might be ok if they recommended more troops than current. I already know we can do more air attacks than currently. Perhaps more support and arms for the moderates in the area. Pressure other countries to contribute more than they are currently doing. I think I would shy away from asking Russia to help, but I wouldn't discourage any involvement they take on their own. Perhaps a really heavy air attack combined with more specialized forces for a short period, like "shock and awe"? Would that at least hurt their ability to recruit new fighters?
You may say Obama is doing all he can currently, given Americas appetite and ability. I am not so sure. I think Obama wants so much to be the anti-war, anti-boots on the ground president, to support his own legacy for being just that (you know he won the Nobel), that he will resist it as much as he possibly can. Our military leaders say we do have combat troops currently operating in the area. I think the White House still denies that fact. We even did, or at least considered, purchasing heavy water from Iran so they remained within the limits of the Nuclear deal. Was this done to save embarrassment from another breach in the deal? We know he ignored ISIS early when there was growing pressure for the US to become involved. When it comes to his legacy, I think he places that high on his list of priorities. But I won't say that for sure, I can't read minds like others apparently can.
I think the list you provided, of the terrorist killed by Obama is great. But sadly, both Bush and Obama have released far more (I think over 100 confirmed and even more suspected?) terrorist from Gitmo that have rejoined terrorist groups, and we still keep releasing them. Some have bomb making and other important skills. Why??
Sorry, I tend to be long winded. Do you think we are fine with what we are currently doing?
that things are not working.... and haven't been working with many posts about grid-lock / poor foreign policy decisions etc..... Why the hell would you check the box for the 'same old knob'??? This is the Trump phenomenon... 'Hey I remember having this conversation 20 years ago - how things weren't working and Congress sucked etc....' Should I vote for a Dem or a Rep?? Maybe NEITHER!! Again - understand this plays to Trump's strength.. It plays to Bernie's strength (he is not a Dem... he is a socialist....seriously) . Trump is under the republican ticket ... but come on -- He isn't a republican....and all of the stalwart conservatives dislike him.... the political pundits on CNN (ex political campaign leaders) dislike him.... Everyone 'in the know' dislikes him.... EXACTLY THE POINT!! - I understand not liking him.... He is not like anything else... He doesn't read prepared speeches... He doesn't read teleprompters.... Go read posts from the past 15 years... Has anything changed to stop the complaints of the past... or do we as a collective populous (sp??) continue on our merry way and get led around by the news agencies to pick the 'right' candidate... 
