"We cannot beat ISIS by killing them"

I guess if we're going to be paying ISIL anyway we may as well make them work for it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/19/u-s-humanitarian-aid-going-to-isis.html

That article/interview goes to the mentality of the talking heads on the left. They are so out of touch with reality, it is frightening. What's even more frightening is that there are people in the military and veterans who have adopted that party.

Hell, I think we'd win faster if we just skipped the jobs and gave them unemployment checks, a free cell phone, and some section 8 housing. Oh, yeah, and Obamacare...combine all that with 200+ channels of free satellite TV and some McDonald's chicken nuggets, the populace will soon be just as docile and easily controlled as ours.

I thought being a terrorist was already a full time job! I guess DoS thinks they aren't working hard enough. Two jobs will make things much better... *facepalm

They won't even need heathcare coverage if they do their first job good enough.

My response....haha unbelievable. We did that in Iraq. As long as you pay them not to kill you....

I think this thread illustrates so much that is wrong with our country right now. There are 22 responses and only 2 proposed any type of solution, the rest just spewed vitriol thereby providing nothing of value to the conversation. If we really want to improve things we have to think critically and provide answers, not simply denigrate others because they have a different opinion or idea. So since we can all agree that simply employing ISIS will not work, what solutions do you propose RallyPoint?

There is a grain of truth there. The Desert Storm may have broken Saddam Hussien's ability to fight a war, but it's obvious that the Iraqi people didn't welcome us with open arms as liberators when we went to finish the job 12 years later.

Bombing from a distance only fosters the next generation of terrorist, because the sons of the people killed are only convinced that we are indeed evil.

I'm not advocating that we give them jobs, education or free healthcare. We do however need to be intelligent in our involvement:
- Are they a threat to our security? In other words, are they going to invade us? No, but terrorism has always been a concern (long before 9/11/01), and always will be...
- Are they a threat to our national interest. Yes. The Middle East is the primary source of oil, and we are dependent on it (Otherwise wouldn't we be more concerned with other parts of the world where worse atrocities occur?).

I'm no tree loving hippie, but we need to either switch to a domestically sourced energy source and let them kill each other without our involvement (that's a bit like staying in the "no peeing" section of the swimming pool), or we need to roll in heavy with the purpose of colonizing the area.

"Walk down right side of road, good. Walk down left side of road, good. Walk down middle... squish just like grape"
~ Kesuke Miyagi "The Karate Kid"

LTC John Tongret - Marie Harf did this, Marie Harf did that. So I said, "Yeah, sure." Just like the Godfather.

Why not pay the guys that are trying to kill us? Give peace a chance, give money a chance what the hell we just print more anyway.

While this might sound like insanity to some it is actually not, it is her presentation that is really causing an issue. What she is saying is right in theory, it is far easier to defeat an enemy that cannot replenish it's forces (this was the strategy we used against Germany and Japan).
However, that is a much more nuanced approach in this day and age. We can't send massive formations of bombers to destroy their industry and wreak morale. We have to conduct full-spectrum operations. That means degrading and destroying ISIS military capabilities while at the same time working in state and peace building operations the ensure ISIS loses the ability to recruit on a large scale (think of it as pulling the weed out by the roots instead of continually spraying it with Round-Up). So, to an extent she is right, we can't win this war by killing them alone (she kind of misses on that point). Even if we go about it quickly and put boots on the ground to destroy ISIS and regain the lost territory in Iraq and Syria that is an expensive endeavor and does not guarantee that full victory will be achieved. If we continue to bomb ISIS we are going to expend hundreds of thousands of dollars for each and every kill we make, and still have no guarantee of full victory. Many people have complained that it didn't work in Iraq and Afghanistan and I counter with that you are correct, but we didn't do it right either. We threw millions of dollars away with no idea what or who it went to. We need to improve our abilities to build peace alongside our abilities to wage war. That leads to stability, security, and the ability to contain radicalism.

I'd say you tagged that one correctly, sir -- Insanity. I guess I've heard it all about ISIS now. Give them jobs ... brutal! That is some drivel: We'll beat them by helping improve the governments of the countries where they come from, and by improving opportunities for ISIS fighters. Chris Matthews hit the nail on the head when he said there will always be poor Muslims, and when the trumpet sounds, they'll join the fanatical Muslim cause.