Which of the options provided do you think the most effective policy would be for the middle-east?

Spit beer out my nose , damn that was funny

George W. Bush... Had a plan that... Bear fruit... I don't like or agree with any of that, but, "...tell the Chinese that terrorist testicles are an aphrodisiac." Is the best line I have heard in years!!

SP5 Christine Conley - Nuts? They had a goal and a target, they followed their religious calling. How to separate them no idea, but stop treating them like buddies is a freaking start. But then I am not a bleeding heart and do not think the Constitution is a suicide pact.

SFC Pete Kain - Sergeant; So you'd agree with Abbot Arnaud Amalric's "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." philosophy would you?

COL Ted Mc - No, that's why I did not choose the nuke em all option. Genocide is never an acceptable option. However taking the gloves off and fighting to win is. If WWII was fought the way we fight today, we would either still fighting the Germans and Japanese or speaking it.

SFC Pete Kain - Sergeant; OK, so it appears that we are in agreement on "Not ALL Muslims are terrorists.".

That means that the next step is to define (with some degree of precision) WHO "The Enemy" IS.

Does that mean that we should include in the category "The Enemy" everyone who MIGHT become a terrorist? How about someone who is "linked to" a terrorist? How about someone who is "reported to be" "linked to" a terrorist? How about someone who is "suspected of" being "linked to a terrorist"?

I'm not saying that the task of defining "The Enemy" is impossible - just that it's a whole lot more difficult than many people think it is because using the wrong definition has the potential for actually increasing the threat by making it easier for "The Enemy" to recruit those people who now believe that you are at war with THEM.

The analogy to WWII breaks down when you consider the fact that both Germany and Japan were actual countries with actual militaries. If America had fought WWII the same way it is fighting in the Middle East, America would NOT still be fighting the Germans and Japanese because most of Europe would be speaking Russian and most of South East Asia would be speaking Japanese. It would be economic suicide for America to still be fighting a war against an enemy that had been defeated (Germany) and an enemy that had won (Japan).

["Face" would have been saved when the Japanese presented the US with replacement battleships as a part of the deal whereby America looked after the high seas and Japan looked after the coastal waters {in which the US swapped its aircraft carriers for Japanese "deep water" combat ships} and paid reparations to the families of those killed at Pearl Harbor.]

Bravo Sgt Mike Williams we do have some very talented Military Intelligence Special Forces People and I have no Problem using their Skills.

The Canadian Economy too where last month alberta lost 15k jobs last month. We buy oil from despots and yet ignore your democracy and best friend to the north and you say no to the keystone xl pipeline but the oil comes by rail in a much more dangerous way that helps 'global warming' anyways.http://globalnews.ca/news/1617917/oils-crash-threatens-to-derail-booming-alberta-and-canada-too/

SP5 Christine Conley - I see that your profile says you are retired. Perhaps this is the reason that you don't understand why people care whether oil companies collapse. 9.8 million jobs were supported by the oil and gas industry in 2011. So, for the men and women that work for these companies as well as their families, I care. Furthermore, I would point to these numbers in response to your statement " They do us no real good...".
The best way out of our dependence on Oil and Gas is for the prices to climb back high enough that alternative energy sources are more feasible. If you truly don't understand how low oil prices hurt our economy, there are tons of articles on the topic.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2015/01/09/falling-oil-prices-impact-economy-and-the-keystone-pipeline/

While I will agree that theoil industry is "holung us back" through heavily influential lobbying tactics, I cannot agree that the auto or other industries are "ready to move forward". Just a month or so ago, a major auto manufacturer falsified emissions from a new product line. Any of the industries that are "ready to move forward" are only there from burdensome regulations by the Federal Gov't. The free market nor American conscience has moved The People to buy more fuel efficient vehicles which leads back to my earlier point of higher oil prices fueling the demand for less dependence on oil... with the added bonus of putting Americans back to work!