So I think we've been waiting for the right opportunity to start this thread. And I expect it will be a controversial thread because many who frequent the politics side of the forum were opposed to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In addition to being an ongoing humanitarian disaster and violation of international law, it has been an albatross around the neck of the U.S economy. It doesn't matter how much industry you have, you cannot spend 1.1 trillion dollars and not notice it. So many Americans are wary of more conflict, even in the face of a humanitarian disaster, and may be paying attention to dollars and cents.
But it is possible to have been opposed to the invasion of Iraq when it had a stable government (even though it was ruled by a despot) and think that what is taking place in Iraq demands a unified response. France appears to be taking that position. They got it right in the first instance, and were scorned by Republicans who coined a euphemism for french fries so embarrassing that it doesn't stand repeating. But they have just launched an attack against Isis.
So what do you guys think? Can ISIS be negotiated with? If so, what demands of theirs should the world accede to? An Islamic State within what borders? Or if the West should respond, should it only be within the borders of Iraq and stop at Syria because we're afraid that hurting Isis might help Assad?
This is a real challenge for our pacifists on the forum (:)). But to respond fairly, tell us the prescription. Abstention? Or War? What is the cost of abstention? What is the cost of war?